1915-03-31

[Stage Direction]
5 GEORGE V., 1915


[Stage Direction]
PRINTED BY J. de L. TACHE, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 1915

1 ' L 1 *	>
i 4 ' u
[Stage Direction]
it	* J-
[Stage Direction]
Douse of Commons Debates

[Stage Direction]
Speaker: Hon. Thomas Simpson Sprotjle.
Wednesday March 31, 1915.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk. 1

*Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Is it a fact that the Imperial Government has rendered compulsory in Great Britain since January last the use of the metric system of weights and measures for pharmaceutical preparations'?
2.	If so, what is the text of the Order in Council putting in force said change?
3.	Does the Canadian Government intend to
follow the example of the Imperial Government?	,


Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	No. The use of the metric system is not compulsory in England, but simply legalized. Recently it has been adopted by the Druggists' Association as the most convenient.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The metric system has the same status in Canada as in England. It is legalized after standards adopted by La Convention Internationale du Metre. The metric standards are kept by the Department of Inland Revenue.


MAPLE SUGAR AND SYRUP.
Mr. KAY:: X. Has the Government taken any steps to enforce the provisions of the Adulteration Act establishing standards for maple sugar and maple syrup, passed in June, 1914?
2.	If not, is it the Intention of the Government to take immediate action against infringements of this Act?


Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	The Act passed in June, 1914, came into force only on the 1st January, 1915, 113


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
and as important amendments were to be made at the present session, it was deemed advisable to wait a little longer before making investigation as to whether, it was complied with or not.
2.	An amendment to the Adulteration Act is at present before Parliament. When this is sanctioned, steps will at once be taken to ascertain whether the Act is being complied with or not, and proceedings taken against any party violating the law.

Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Is the Government aware that a regulation is reported to have been passed by the management of the Intercolonial railway, to take effect on the 5th March, instant, in virtue of which the employees on the Intercolonial, working at ChaudiSre, have lost time marked, and are not paid for such lost time, when they arrive after the hour fixed by such regulation, even though such delay is due to the sub-train which carries them from LSvis to ChaudiSre?
2.	Is the Government aware that, in virtue
of the same regulation, these same employees are obliged to receive their cheques at the supplies department and to cross several tracks on which locomotives are constantly moving?	,
3.	Does the Government intend to continue the said regulation in force?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	The same regulations are in force at Chaudiere Junction as at other engine houses on the system. Employees arriving late on account of the train being delayed are allowed to commence work at once, and paid accordingly; those arriving late through their own fault are not permitted to commence work until the next hour.
2.	The time office is in the stores building. There are three tracks between the stores building , and the round house which it is necessary for the men to cross. The movement over these tracks is not extensive and is slow, and necessary precautions are being taken to protect the men. This is only a temporary arrangement pending the installation of a time clock in the machine shop.
3.	Yes.
EDITION	.


TELEGRAPHERS' EMPLOYMENT.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is the Government aware that on the 1st of January, 1915, the Great North Western Telegraph Company and the Canadian Northern Telegraph Company are said to have been amalgamated and that both lines are now operated under the name of Great North Western Telegraph Company?
2.	Is the Government aware that, as alleged, George C. Corman and A. J. Worzel, both employees in the Montreal office of the Great North Western Telegraph Company, were given fifteen days' notice that after the 25th of March instant their services would no longer be required?
3.	Is the Minister of Labour aware that these men hold first-class records and ample seniority, and that the action of the said company in thi3 instance is contrary to the provisions of article 5 of the Award of the Board of Conciliation or 1911?
4.	Does the Government, or the Department of Labour, intend to take any steps to have this rectified?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Statements on the subject of an apparently authentic character have been observed.
2.	Communications received are to the general effect stated.
3.	Communications received from the officers of the labour organization affected represent the situation generally to be as stated.
4.	The matter has been taken up with the employing company concerned with a view to having what is possible done to have the differences which have arisen amicably arranged.


PRICE OF EXPORT HERRINGS.
Mr. MICHAUD:: Is it the intention of the Government to adopt a regulation under the provisions of the Fisheries Act regulating the price of small fresh herrings caught in Canadian waters and exported fresh to the Untied States?


Mr. HAZEN:: No. The Fisheries Act does not give authority to make such a regulation.


RIGAUD WHARF.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the work being carried on at present on the Rigaud wharf?
2.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers. and the amount of their tenders?
3.	If not, who is in charge of such work?
4.	What is the name or names of the superintendent or superintendents?
5.	What amount did the Government appropriate for such work?
6.	What is the scale of salaries paid to those who work on the said wharf?
7.	Has it been recommended to the Government by its resident engineer and by others to purchase a piece of land adjacent to that be-

longing to the Government in order to lessen the incline of the road that is very steep between the wharf and the public highway?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Paul Paradis, assistant engineer.
4.	Hector Chevrier.
5.	$2,500.
6.	Superintendent, $3.50 per day; foreman-carpenter, $3.50 per day; carpenters, $3 per day; masons, $3 per day; labourers, $2 per day.
7.	Yes.


THREE RIVERS PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Why was the work on the public buildings at Three Rivers suspended?
2.	Did the Government make any arrangements since the signing of the contract with the contractors for the construction of the said buildings?
3.	VThat is the amount mentioned in the contract for the construction of the wharf at Cap de la Madeleine?
4.	How much money has been paid for that wharf s n e V e o m nc ment cf c n t. uc 'on to date, and to whom, and why were such moneys paid?
5.	At whose request were the works on the Three Rivers wharves during the years 1914 and 1915 carried on?
6.	Are such works paid for by the Government, or by the Harbour Commissioners of Three Rivers?
7.	(a) At what date did the Government authorize such works, and (b) to whom did it confide the undertaking?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Weather was too cold to build stonework. No instructions were given to suspend, the contractors did so themselves, principally because they had no stone ready.
2.	Arrangements were made to make the north and south elevations similar to the Notre Dame street elevation.
3.	Schedule rates, approximately $56,000.
4.	Total cost to 1912-1913, $9,167.56. In 1913-1914 the wharf was enlarged, under contract; paid to date, $57,426.62; total, $66,594.18.
5.	Works done during 1914-15 were to complete work already under contract.
6.	By the Government.
7.	(a) May 18, 1910, March 18, 1912. (b) Collins & Giroux, of Ottawa.


SS.. TYRIAN REPAIRS.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Are any repairs now being made on the ss. Tyrian at Halifax?

2.	If so, (a) who has the contract for the same, and (b) what is the amount to be expended?
3.	Were tenders asked for said work? If so, who were asked to tender, and what were the amounts tendered, respectively?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Halifax Marine Engineering Co. has contract for repairs and renewals to machinery, $16,750, and for new boilers, $9,200; (b) T. Hogan & Co., Halifax, have contract for removal of old boilers, alterations to boiler room and installation of new boilers, $9,841.
3.	Yes, tenders .were called by public advertisement for new engines and boilers, and the following tenders were received:
Supply of New Engine.
1.	Bow Mclachlin Co	$10,416	002.	McKie & Baxter	10,610	673.	Poison Iron Works, Ltd.	..	. . ..	12,244	004.	The Jno. Inglis Co., Ltd	
12,500	005.	The Halifax Engine Co.,	Ltd.* . . .	14,300	006.	Collingwood Shipbuilding	Co,	Ltd. .	14,000	007.	The ChaudiSre Machine and Foundry Co	
15,750	00
* Alternative offer to install compound surface condensing engine to be supplied by department and fit propeller to shaft, department to pay for ship hire and dockage, connect piping from boilers, pumps, circulating pump suction and discharge to sea, remove present engine and stow as directed for $13,600.
For repairs to old machinery.
1.	The Halifax Marine Eng. Co., Ltd. 16,750 00
2.	Burns & Kelleher	 17,200 00
Supply of new boilers.
1.	The Halifax Marine and Engine
Co., Ltd	  9,200	00
2.	International Engineering Works,
Ltd	
9,500	003.	The Jenckes Machine Co.,	Ltd.	.	.	.	9,554	004.	Collingwood Shipbuilding	Co.,	Ltd.	10,000	005.	The Jno. Inglis Co., Ltd	
10,200	006.	Poison Iron Works, Ltd	
10,936	007.	The ChaudiSre Machine and Foundry Co	
18,500	00
Installation of new boilers.
1.	The T. Hogan & Co	 9,841 00
2.	Halifax Marine & Engineering
Co	
14,550	003.	A. A. Webber & Son	
14,700	00
ARTHUR GILBERT. [DOT]


Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Has Mr. Arthur Gilbert been collector of excise or an employee of the Inland Revenue Department at Victoriaville?
2.	When was he appointed to such position?
3.	Did he succeed a Mr. J. U. Poirier and was the latter dismissed?
4.	What salary did Mr. Gilbert receive during each of the years 1912, 1913 and 1914?
5.	Had Mr. Gilbert an assistant at Victoriaville? If so, who was that assistant, and what was his salary?
6.	What rent did the Government pay for Mr. Gilbert's office?


Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	July 19, 1912.
3.	Yes. Mr. J. U. Poirier.
4.	1912, $333.30; 1913, $799.92; 1914, $799.92.
5.	No.
6.	$20, monthly rent.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. Chisholm: For a copy of all applications received for Fenian raid bounty from residents of the county of Hants; also the names of persons who have been paid the bounty and those who have been refused it in said county; with the reasons for refusal, and showing the number of applications that have yet been dealt with.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of Public Works):: I desire to draw the attention of the Plouse to a statement that appeared in the Toronto Globe of yesterday, which, to say the least of it, seems to me rather unfair. It reads as follows:
Early Prorogation to Hush Scandals?
Ottawa, March 29.-It looks as though the Government is now eager and determined to " close shop." It proposes, if possible, to crowd through remaining business and prorogue by the end of the present week. To do this it will be necessary to abandon the Easter adjournment and sit on Saturday. The Government notice providing for the Eastertide adjournment Avas formally put in, but since has been mysteriously withdrawn. Importance is attached to .the new move to end Parliament as soon as possible by reason of the fact that prorogation would bring automatically a termination to the embarrassing investigations of the .Public Accounts Committee, the special inquiry on soldier's boots and other investigations AA'hich threaten further serious disclosures.
The facts are that the Clerk of the House, follotving his usual practice, and without any special notification from any member of the Government, placed the usual notice on the Order Paper that when this House adjourns to-day it shall stand adjourned till next Tuesday. The first intimation I had of that notice being on the Order Paper was when hon. gentlemen opposite requested that it be withdrawn, and that we sit on Saturday, and on Monday and Tuesday of next week, in the hope of being able to conclude the business of the House within that time. Therefore I think it was rather unfair of the Globe to make the statement that

Importance is attached to the new move to end Parliament as soon as possible by reason of the fact that prorogation would bring automatically a termination to the embarrassing investigation of the Public Accounts Committee, the special inquiry on soldiers' boots and other investigations which threaten further serious disclosures.
I do not think that the Government, either in this House or in the Public Accounts Committee, have given any evidence of a desire to prevent any matter from coming out that hon. gentlemen desired to be brought to the attention of the House and the country. I claim that the statement of the Globe is a very unfair representation of the facts, by reason of the fact that if the motion mentioned has been withdrawn it has been withdrawn at the request of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I have only to say that if this motion was withdrawn at the request of gentlemen on this side of the House, I have no knowledge of it. The attitude of the Opposition this session has been to facilitate business as much as they possibly could; I think everybody will agree that we have had no other desire. For my part, I at one time indulged in the hope that it would be possible to close by Easter, and some time ago, when the Government proposed to take Mondays, I asked what business they had still to bring down. We were told what business they had to bring down, but since that day the Government has been continually bringing down new business of which we had no notice. To-day there is a new Bill on the Order Paper, to amend the Supreme Court Act. We were given no notice of that. The Estimates . were brought down only last evening. If, under such circumstances, we are to sit from day to day I have no objection, but I think it would be preferable to have the usual Easter adjournment. If the Government desires otherwise, we on this i ide of the House are ready to go on.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I gave notice of my motion to the Clerk, and it appears in the Votes and Proceedings this morning. It is in accordance with what I stated two or three days ago, that we should ask the House to adjourn Thursday night and sit again on Saturday and on Monday in order to speed business through as quickly as possible. The Opposition have a perfect right to sufficient time in which to consider all measures that are .brought down. Some new measures have been brought; down which were rather unexpected, but I am
 -
told they are not very serious, and I hope they will not take a very long time to discuss and dispose of. I am quite sure that the opinion which prevails on both sides of the House is that with the exception of Good Friday, we should stick to business until the business of the House is finished.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I ask if
there are any more measures to be brought down by the Government, or is this the last ?


George Eulas Foster: There are no more measures to be brought down that I know of.


Wilfrid Laurier: "I know of" is rather elastic.


George Eulas Foster: But of course one never knows what may happen.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am afraid that is true.


Mr. DOHERTY:: The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has mentioned the Bill to amend the Supreme Court Act. Unless my memory is entirely at fault, when the right Ihon. gentleman asked the question as to what business -might be expected, the -right hon. leader of the House (Sir Robert Borden), on my reminding him of it, mentioned that -there might possibly be a Bill to amend the Supreme Court Act. It is a very trifling amendment.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend is right in that. Bqt that was ten days ago, and the Bill now appears for tfhe first time.



HOUSE OF COMMONS REPRESENTATION ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. 0. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), the House went into Committee on Bill No. 106, to amend the Representation Act, 1914-Sir Robert Borden; Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1-Nipissing:
Charles Joseph Doherty: As was explained when this Bill was introduced, its purpose is simply to correct certain errors in the description of some of the constituencies as set forth in the Act of last year providing for the redistribution. As I understand it, there are no substantial changes in any constituency. It is merely the correction of errors in description, and if I am correctly informed, the matter has been looked into by the committee that dealt

with redistribution, and the Bill as it now stands represents correctly what was agreed upon as being necessary.


Mr. BUREAU:: What are the constituencies affected by these corrections ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Nipissing, London,
Quebec West, Jacques Cartier, Wright, Labelle and Hull, Portage la Prairie, Springfield, and some constituencies in Prince Edward Island.
Mr. PARDEiE : This was necessary because, as I understand it, one side of the boundary of the city of London had been entirely left out and this describes it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The effect of the description was to include in London sections which it was not intended to include.


Wilfrid Laurier: In regard to
Nipissing, the first amendment simply strikes out the word " Kelly." Kelly should not be there?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Kelly should not be
there. I understand that Kelly is a township some seven townships to the south of the boundary. It was put in there by error.
On paragraph 4-Quebec West:


Mr. LACHANCE:: Some explanation is
necessary here. Perhaps the minister has an explanation to give.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the Act that was
passed Limoilou was included in Quebec East. Limoilou includes the village of Stadacona, which was intended to be in Quebec West. For the purpose of taking Stadacona from Quebec East I beg to move:
That paragraph 4 he amended by inserting after the figure 6 the words: " (b) The description of the electoral district of Quebec East is amended by adding at the end thereof the following words: ' Exclusive of the village of Stadacona'; and further that clause (c) of the same paragraph 4 be amended by inserting in the third line, after the words ' St. Malo ' the words, ' and the village of Stadacona.' "
This will have the effect of placing the village of Stadacona where it was intended to be placed, that is, in Quebec West.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: For the sake of clearness I would suggest that the section be redrafted as it should read, instead of amending it in this way.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that would be better. There is a change to be made in regard to Hull and Labelle, and it might be understood that these sections will be taken
as passed, they to be redrafted and the changes incorporated in them.
On section 5-Jacques Cartier shall not include any portion of St. Denis ward:


Wilfrid Laurier: This amendment is not clear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: St. Denis ward was in Jacques Cartier as it existed at the time of the passing of the Act, and it should have been included in the places that were excluded from Jacques Cartier. It was not mentioned as being excluded, though it is mentioned as forming part of a new electoral district.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it in
Maisonneuve?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is described as the electoral district of St. Denis, and the Act says that that electoral district shall be composed of the whole of St. Denis ward. As the Act stands, St. Denis ward is apparently in this new riding, and also in Jacques Cartier.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Mr. PARDEE:: As. I understand it, the amendment with regard to Hull and Labelle is in conformity with the arrangement made yesterday by the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) with.Mr, Gisborne* the law clerk.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There has been no change that I know of.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The minister has before him the written amendment with regard to Labelle and Wright.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is sent to me as being the result of the conference.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Quite so.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is there any change in section 6 with regard to Buckingham?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. In the description of the electoral district of Hull, the townships of Southeast Buckingham and North Templeton, not being named, were left in the electoral districts of Labelle and Wright respectively. It was intended that both those townships should be in Hull. That was the reason of the introduction of subsection 6 into this Bill. I understand that, as a result of the conference of yesterday, there was to be added to subsection 6 these words:
And the municipality of South Hull shall form part of the electoral district of Hull and not part of the electoral district of Wright.


Robert Rogers: That is changing the
boundaries altogether. It is going too far.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That amendment was
handed to me as a result of a conference of yesterday. I am not myself sufficiently familiar with the geography of the district to know exactly what the change means.


Robert Rogers: If we adopt that amendment, we adopt the principle that we decided not to take into eonsidera-
12 noon, tion at all, that is, the changing of the boundaries. I understood this Bill was simply to correct errors made in the descriptions of the electoral districts. This opens up a wider field altogether.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I understood from the
hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Achim) that a piece had been taken out of the city of Hull which should have been left in. South Hull was really transferred to another riding, although that was not the intention of the original Act at all.


Robert Rogers: It may be all right, but I think we had better allow the section to stand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will have it recast.
Subsection 6 stands.
On subsection 8-Portage la Prairie:


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
change here?


Robert Rogers: Under the Act as it now stands, the portions mentioned are included both in Winnipeg and Portage la Prairie. They will now be Winnipeg alone.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 9-Springfield:
. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: In what electoral district will the portions named be included?
Robert Rogers: According to the Act as
it now stands, they are included in both Winnipeg and Springfield. They will now be in Winnipeg alone.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. P. E. Blondin (Minister of Inland Revenue) Bill No. 114, to amend the Adulteration Act was read the second time, and the House went into

Committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1-imitation or compound maple sugar or maple syrup to be labelled:
Mr. ROBB:: Last session a deputation of the maple sugar makers of Canada was introduced to the Minister of Inland Revenue, and upon their recommendation a Bill on this subject was passed by Parliament. Will the minister please explain why it is that he comes before Parliament to-day asking for an amendment of that Act of last session? Upon whose demand is this new legislation introduced?


Mr. BLONDIN:: As I stated on a previous occasion, it was found that the Act of last session was not workable. This Bill proposes to amend that Act so as to authorize the maker or seller of the imitation article to label the article so as to make the public aware that it is an imitation. I will give the details of these amendments.
Section 29 (a) as appears in section 4 of chapter 19 of the Revised Statutes, 1914, entitled "An Act To Amend the Adulteration Act," is repealed. This repealed section provided that no article of food should be sold as maple sugar or maple syrup unless it was pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup, and that every article which did not comply with the standard for maple sugar and maple syrup as provided by statute should be deemed to be adulterated,-that is to say, in case the article represented to be maple sugar or maple syrup was offered for sale and did not comply with the standard, then the vendor would have to prove that it was really pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup.
The second subsection of that section provided that the word "maple" should not be used on a label of any article or on a package containing it unless the article was pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup, but, by a clerical error, the words "which is or" were inserted at the end of the fourth line of said subsection and had the effect of prohibiting the use of the word "maple" on the label of even pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup, thereby, in a certain sense, defeating the object of the Act.
The amendments provided in subsection 1 are, in effect: that any article of food which has the appearance of maple sugar or which is partly composed of maple sugar and maple syrup must bear a label containing the words "imitation maple



MAR0H 31, 1915

[Stage Direction]
sugar" or "imitation maple syrup" or "compound maple sugar" or "compound maple syrup," so that the purchaser of such an article shall receive due notice that what he is buying is in fact a "compound" or an "imitation" of maple sugar or maple syrup and thereby will not be deceived as to what he is purchasing.
Subsection 2 is to the same effect as the latter part of subsection 1 of section 29 (a) of last year's amendment, that is to say, it throws the obligation on the vendor of maple sugar or maple syrup, who 'does not comply with the standard of proving that the article is really maple sugar or maple syrup.
Subsection 3 is the same as subsection 2 of section 29 (a) of last year's amendment, with the exception that the words "which is or" are struck out.
Section 2 of the Bill amends sections 31 and 32 of "the Adulteration of Foods Act. Section 31 is amended by adding the words " and not less than $25 and costs," in subsection (b) after the word " costs " in the third line thereof. In the Act as it stands at present, there is no minimum ffnd, and it is deemed advisable that a fine of $25 as a minimum should be imposed in cases of violation of the Adulteration Act, covered by this section.
Section 32 is amended for the same reason, the words " and not less than $50 and costs," are added after the word " both " in the fourth line of subsection (a), so that a minimum fine should be imposed in cases of violation of the Act piovided for by this subsection.
The words, " and not less than $25 and costs,. and for each subsequent offence a penalty not exceeding $200 and costs, or six months in jail, or both and not less than $50 and costs," are added to subsection (b) after the word " then " in the fourth line of said subsection (b). These two sections of the Act (31 and 32) are deemed incomplete as they are at present, and it was thought advisable to amend them in the manner suggested.
Section 37 of the Act is also repealed, and the amendment as suggested in section 3 of the proposed Bill is substituted therefor. The intention of this amendment is to reach the vendor of an article resembling maple syrup, who does not label this article as being an "imitation" or a " compound," and also provides for a higher minimum penalty, also for a penalty for subsequent offences, which section 37 as it is at present, does not provide for.
Subsection 40 of the Act is repealed, and replaced by the section appearing in section 4 of the present Bill. The intention of this amendment is to give the person who gives information or otherwise helps in the detection or violation of the Adulteration Act, one half the penalty. It is expected that this amendment will be a great help to the department in the application of the law and the detection of all violations thereof.
I understand that the most contentious question in regard to this Bill is whether the law should entirely prohibit the sale of compounds of maple syrup or maple sugar, or whether this trade should be allowed to go on provided the public are made aware that they are buying a compound or imitation article, and are not buying pure maple syrup or pure maple sugar. The reason in favour of allowing this trade to go on is that many people cannot afford to buy the pure article, but would like to buy the compound, which is cheaper. I am inclined to believe that there would be no objection to such sale so long as the public are made aware that they are buying the imitation; and I think that is one of the worst evils from which the maple sugar industry is suffering-that to-day the adulterated stuff can be sold on the market without my department being able to interfere to prevent it, even though the purchaser may be under the impression that it is pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup that he is purchasing Under the present Act dealers may sell adulterated sugar or syrup provided they put no label on the package. The aim of the Act is to- force the man who manufactures a compound or makes any adulteration of the sugar or syrup to announce it to the public and put on. his package the word " imitation." So long as the maple sugar is pure the dealer is not obliged to use any label. Articles which have no labels on are supposed to be pure.
Wilfrid Laurier: The objection to this legislation, which comes so soon after the Act of last session, is that to some extent it favours adulteration. Adulteration is one of the evils of this modem age. Scarcely anything that comes upon the table is not in some way adulterated by some industrious man who derives a profit from doing so at the expense of the consumer. The manufacturers of maple sugar last year interviewed the Government protesting against the adulteration of maple sugar, and had it made an offence. I think every-

body will agree that we should prevent, as far as we can, adulteration of any kind of food. This year those who have been adulterating maple sugar come back and ask permission still to sell adulterated sugar providing that they announce it to the public in a certain way, but they should not be allowed to adulterate it. Adulteration ought not to be encouraged, and the answer that should have been given those who came and asked the privilege of putting adulterated sugar on the market should have been: You must conform to the law, and the law passed last year requires that all maple sugar shall be pure. That should have been the answer instead of saying that - they must announce that the sugar is adulterated. I think the objection taken by the hon. gentleman for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) is very serious, and ought to be taken into consideration by the Government, that the Bill which my hon. friend is now amending was introduced last year at the request of the maple sugar makers. They protested against their product being adulterated in any way, and I am surprised that, twelve months after passing that law, those against whom the law was directed are able to come back again and obtain the privilege of doing what was denied them last year.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Although this Bill may appear to give more protection to the adulterators, it is, on the contrary, an effort to devise some means to follow them. What has happened under the law of last year? We have had more adulteration of maple sugar than we had before. Why? Because the dealers put on the market maple syrup with all kinds of labels which we cannot control, which did not contain the word " maple," while in many- cases they informed their customers verbally that it was maple syrup they were selling.


Jacques Bureau: How is the labelling of
the packages going to help? Supposing a man sells an adulterated package and does not label it, he is liable to a fine. You must first have an inspector analyse the contents of the package to ascertain that it is not pure maple syrup. Under the old Act the man selling such adulterated goods would be subject to a fine. This is only recognizing the compound of maple syrup and helping the man who wishes to cheat the public to put on the market an article not fit for consumption. If you want to prevent that and to prevent compounds going on the market, you ought to make the

man who offers the adulterated article subject to a penalty. You have no more guarantee that the man who is going to adulterate maple syrup will put his label on it than that the man who is offering maple syrup will say:	This is not the right stuff
I am selling you; I have put yellow sugar in it. The minister knows that the man \who resorts to that means will not spend money to put labels on his goods telling the public what he is doing.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: To-day it is left to my department to detect the adulterators; but by this Act we are compelling the adulterators to self-denunciation; every article that is put on the market must be labelled " imitation " if it is not pure.


Jacques Bureau: Why legalize adulteration by putting that label on the package?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: We do not.


Jacques Bureau: You do. I may go on
the market with an adulterated package, but the moment I put on the package the words " compound maple syrup," I am within the law.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is more a question ot . whether our efforts to prevent adulteration is to prevent only for the sake of prevention or to make the public aware that they are buying adulterated goods. If I want to buy this imitation I have the choice of doing so. I do not think that we should prevent a man who wants to buy these imitations from doing so; but I think we must force the dealer to make the public aware that such and such products are compounds.


James Alexander Robb: The position that the minister has just taken is a complete change from the attitude of his predecessor last year, when the farmers and makers of maple syrup were before the Committee on Agriculture, and from the position taken by the Minister of Agriculture who was present at that gathering. Members of the Agricultural Committee may remember that quite a large deputation of maple sugar makers from the province of Quebec and eastern Ontario waited on the Minister of Inland Revenue and the Minister of Agriculture and objected to this very practice. They strongly resented the use of the word " maple " in connection with these adulterations that are made up in cellars in Montreal and sent out to the people in the Northwest and British Columbia, branded as maple sugar, or adulterated sugar,

if you will. Their point was that the imitators should not be allowed to use the word " maple " at all, and with that view the minister's predecessor and the Minister of Agriculture sided and took very strong ground before the committee. I think the minister should give some better explanation of this change of policy.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My hon. friend knows
that there are articles on the market which are really not maple syrup, and on which the word " maple " does not appear.


James Alexander Robb: They would not bring the
price they would fetch if the word " maple " were on them. It is the word " maple " that gives them value.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: First of all, if you want to use the word " maple " you have to put it in a conspicuous position. The section
says:
No person shall keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or sell, any article of food resembling or being an imitation of maple sugar or maple syrup, or which is composed partly of maple sugar or maple syrup and which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup, unless the article itself or the package containing it is labelled with the words " imitation maple sugar " or " imitation maple syrup," or " compound maple sugar " or " compound maple syrup," as the case may be, in a conspicuous place on the article itself.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: If my hon. friend reads the whole section he will see that the word " imitation " need not be on it at all. A man might sell a compound, having on one side the words " compound maple syrup " and on the other side " extra pure article," and that would give the impression of being the very best kind of maple syrup. The word " imitation " need not be on it at all under this section.


Mr. TURRIFF:: What is the object in
allowing adulterated maple sugar and maple syrup to be put on the market at all? We in the West do not produce any maple sugar or maple syrup, but we buy a good deal; and many times we have bought what purported to be maple syrup or maple sugar, but what turned out to be an imitation made of yellow muscovado sugar. Why should manufacturers be permitted to do that? Why does not the minister settle the whole matter by imposing a heavy penalty on any one who sells in any shape or form adulterated maple sugar or maple syrup that purports to be the real article? He should allow the sale of pure maple sugar and maple syrup and nothing else. By this Bill
the minister is allowing anybody to sell adulterated maple sugar or maple syrup. This will only make matters much worse. Why does not the minister continue the policy of his predecessor a little further and impose such penalties on the man who is found selling adulterated maple sugar or maple syrup that he will never do it again? That would overcome the whole difficulty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know that I
am very well versed in this question, but I should "like to know the object that is sought to be attained by insisting that there should be no possible method by which a man might make a compound of maple syrup. Whether or not it is desirable to allow such compounds to be sold I am not prepared to say. But when the word " adulterated " is used, it always gives the idea that the article is being set up for something that it is not. What is not quite clear to my mind is this: Why should we prevent a perfectly honest man from making a syrup of which maple may form one of the component parts, a syrup which is cheaper than the pure maple syrup, and which some persons are desirous of buying? I should like to know what harm is going to be doner by allowing that man to put his ware upon the market with the statement staring everybody in the face that it is what it is, that it is not maple syrup, but an imitation. Perhaps some better word than compound could be found. I understand that the purpose of this legislation is to make any man who wants to sell such an article as I have described tell the public that it is what it is, and that it is not maple syrup. If it be an evil to allow people to make a compound of maple syrup, then this course may not be a desirable thing; but if the evil consists simply in a man's selling as maple syrup what really is not maple syrup, it seems to me this Bill will aid in counteracting the evil, and it will not produce a result whereby you would prohibit a man perfectly honest from making an article of which maple syrup might form a component part, and which is cheaper than the pure article.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know whether the minister has received any correspondence on the subject, but I have from parties who strongly object to the Bill. Their objection to it is this. Maple sugar and maple syrup are peculiarly Canadian products, and the makers of these articles are anxious to have maple sugar and maple syrup known on the mar-

ket; but for years past they have had to suffer from the malignant industry of some people who adulterate these articles. As I stated a moment ago, the adulteration of food is one of the evils of the present day. It is to be found not only in maple sugar and maple syrup, but in almost everything. Now, the object of the law and the, object of the Government ought to be to prevent adulteration, and to see that no food comes on the table unless it is what it purports to be. There are parties who make some compound of maple sugar and of maple syrup, but that is not in the interest of public health. It is injurious to health, and certainly injurious to the genuine article. This question came before the House last year, and ft has several times been before the House and the country. A delegation of the makers of maple sugar came before the Committee of Agriculture last year, and as a result of their representations and the deliberation of the Government upon them the present Adulteration Act was passed. But steps are now to be taken to make that law ineffective. That is the objection which the makers of maple sugar and maple syrup have to this Bill, and it is an objection worthy of consideration by this Government. The makers have given this matter their very best thought, and decided that there should be no adulteration at all of the articles they produce. That is the sum total of their objection. They object to this legislation because it allows an adulteration which is altogether objectionable.


Mr. MARCIL:: As a constant user of maple sugar and maple syrup I must give my own experience. It is the most difficult thing in the world to obtain the genuine article to-day. If you go into any high-class grocery store in Montreal or any other city you have to accept the salesman's word that what you are getting is genuine maple sugar or maple syrup. It has been only within the last ten or fifteen years that the maple groves have been getting scarce in the province of Quebec. I am not so familiar with Ontario, so I will not speak about that. When they began to disappear, it was felt that there was a need for a substitute, and a way was found of getting up an artistic imitation on which the word "compound" was hidden away somewhere, and the word "maple" put in a conspicuous place. It is most difficult to obtain the genuine article to-day.

The Minister of Justice, who comes from the province of Quebec, knows the high value that is placed upon the industry. It is essentially a national industry, and is unique in this respect. Therefore it should be safeguarded in every possible way. No adulteration of any kind should be permitted.


Mr. MORRIS:: This is a (question which interests me to a very considerable extent. I think the legislation which was passed last year was very acceptable to the sugar makers of the district from which I come. I do not think that the sugar makers of our district would have any objection to any company manufacturing any syrups they desired to produce; but, as one- coming from a district which is very much interested in the manufacture of sugar, I very much object to any company borrowing the name "maple." Maple sugar is one of the best and most wholesome products of our country. The industry is a very important one, and I feel it is the duty of this Government to protect it. The object of the farmers who came here last year was simply to protect that industry. They did not want to borjfnv anything from any other industry; they simply wanted to protect an honest industry, and I think it is the duty of this Government to do right by these people.


Mr. G. BOYER (Vaudreuil) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate sincerely the Minister of Inland Revenue for introducing to-day this legislation which has been for a long time expected and the need of which has been felt also for a long time. His predecessor, at the last session, introduced a Bill, on which, if I am not mistaken, this one is an improvement. I take this opportunity also of expressing my thanks to the minister and his officers who have made it easy for me to secure interviews for the purpose of discussing the Bill.
It is not therefore, Mr. Chairman, believe me, with a critical disposition, that I rise now, but only to ask that it be finally retouched so as to be made for the present entirely effective and satisfactory both to those to whom it applies, many of whom are electors of mine, and to myself.
The. maple sugar industry, must be placed on the same footing as all the other agricultural industries, and really it is due to the general ignorance of its great possibilities if it has been heretofore neglected. Up to the present time the farmer has manufactured maple syrup and sugar solely for his fam-

ily's use; it was only as a luxury that the consumer bought yearly a certain quantity for his table. Lately it has been discovered that this industry, heretofore unexploited, could be turned into a gold mine for the farmers; and that, in order to extract this gold which would go to swell the income of the farm, this industry must be given a wider scope and a new direction. The awakening has been general. Here, the late Government distributed to 50,000 owners of maple-bushes a very valuable pamphlet on the manufacture of maple syrup and sugar, and drafted a Bill designed to give protection to the producer. At Quebec, at the same time, the provincial government opened in different parts of the province schools for the practical teaching of this industry. In a word the movement is spreading all over and gives good promises for the future. A society, comprising some of the most notable producers, and persons interested in this industry, and of which I am president, although not myself a producer, was formed two years ago, and apparently has taken upon itself the important as well as patriotic task of acting as intermediary between the mass of the producers and those authorities who see to the making of laws, the protection of rights, the opening of markets, etc. I have always myself taken a deep concern in this industry, although the number of producers to be found in my county is not at all commensurate with its extent. That was my reason, as early as 1906, for rising in this House to speak in favour of this industry. On that occasion I was spokesman for a powerful association of farmers of Vaudreuil.
At that time, already distant, I was given encouragement. And I am glad to say that greater care has since been given to the inspection of adulterated products, but adulterators can never be proceeded against too rigorously. It is only of late that the Government seems to have resolved seriously to enact a law for the protection of that new agricultural industry, and I shall not be sparing in my congratulations.
First of all, before taking up the Bill, we may ask if this industry deserves to be noticed by this House. Is the maple industry, meaning thereby the extraction of the sap to be manufactured into sugar or syrup, profitable-to the producers and consequently for the country in general? After a close study of Jthe question, and after comparing it with the other money-crops on the farm, I find that many of these are on the whole
less productive than the sugar industry. I am satisfied that it will come as a surprise to many to learn that the sugar industry, until now considered insignificant as a source of income, does, on the contrary, bring to the- farmer quite a profit. If we may rely on the last census, the annual production of maple sugar exceeds that of the fruit-growing industry. Our orchards and fruit trees of various species have yielded approximately, in 1911, $1,470,000, that is 14 per cent less than the maple-tree. The value of maple sugar and syrup manufactured in 1911 exceeds the value of sheep sold and killed on the farm in 1910; is almost equal to the value of poultry sold and killed in the same-year; amounts to more than the quantity of cream sold and is six times greater than the value of the total yield of honey and wax. Take my own county; according to statistics I myself gathered last year, 128 farmers have together notched 96,465 maple trees, from which 13,740 gallons of syrup and 18,811 pounds of sugar were manufactured, representing a total value of $19,712. The number of producers in the county exceeded 128, but only that number have answered the circular I sent around.
The annual product of the maple-tree reaches about $2,000,000 and if there was provided proper protection, it would in a very tew y-ears amount to $6,000,000, the increase going into the pockets of the farmers and those who engage in the sugar industry. If then the Government would give the same care to the development of that industry which it gives to the other farm specialties, enough sugar and syrup could be produced to supply the whole Canadian market. Our sugar and syrup could take the place of all other known sugars and syrups. Now, what is required to rebuild or, if you prefer, to build up, this industry, are the combined efforts of all who are directly or indirectly interested in the development of agriculture. We know from past experience that by a well distributed propaganda, we have almost created the dairy industry and stock-raising. Many other astonishing results have been obtained from a systematic propaganda organized by the various governments, from the laws of these governments and from the combined efforts of the farmers and .educated and patriotic persons. The maple industry, during this last decade, instead of expanding, has been steadily declining till it could almost be said to be on the eve of disappearing, when competent and devoted men suddenly decided to come to its rescue

and present circumstances seem of a nature to encourage them.
I shall now give figures showing the progress of this industry since 1850, which point to the conclusion that a considerable amount of money has been lost to our farmers, because they neglected to work the maple-tree. I have drawn important information from the annual report of the co-operative society of maple sugar and syrup producers. This information is furnished by Mr. Joseph H. Lefevre, secretary or the society, John H. Grimm, a Montreal manufacturer and other distinguished men who take an interest in this industry. In looking into these statistics it will be found that the maple region extends throughout Quebec, Ontario, and the maritime provinces, and that about two-thirds of the total production is in Quebec. Canada produced from
1850 to 1860, 135,000,000 of pounds of maple sugar.
1860 to 1870, 175,000,000 of pounds of maple sugar, an increase of 40,000,000.
1870 to 1880, 190,000,000 of pounds of maple sugar, an increase of 15,000,000.
1880 to 1890, 225,000,000 of pounds of maple sugar, an increase of 35,000,000.
1890 to 1900, 212,000,000 of pounds of maple sugar, a decrease of 13,000,000.
1900 to 1910, 196,000,000 of pounds of maple sugar, a decrease of 16,000,000.
Those figures are to be apportioned among the different provinces in about the following proportion: Quebec contributed 65 per cent of the total output of maple sugar and syrup manufactured in Canada; Ontario, 32 per cent, and the maritime provinces, 3 per cent.
But how explain the decrease of 16,000,000 of pounds in the production of maple sugar during the ten years from 1890 to 1900? That decrease is due to the adulterators of all kinds, who, by their unfair competition, have disheartened the farmers On June 6, 1905, out of one hundred samples of syrup tested by the Inland Revenue officers, 76 were found to have been adulterated; which means that one-quarter was pure and three-quarters mixtures. In the second series of tests made, 34 per cent of the samples proved adulterated. On February 16, 1911, Mr. McGill wrote to Mr. Grimm, of Montreal, that out of twelve hundred sample tests only 59 came up to the standard which had been adopted as the legal standard. On the other hand, the sugar-bush has been neglected in certain localities. The small state of Vermont, with an area of only 10,200 square miles, has an annual production of sugar amounting to $1,086,933.
[Mr; Boyer.]
This figure is an eloquent answer to those who would say that there is no money in the maple syrup and sugar industry. According to the census of the United States of 1910, which gives the data for 1909, maple sugar is made in nineteen states. The total number of trees notched, 18,899,533; pounds of sugar made, 14,060,206; gallons of syrup made, 4,106,611, corresponding to 43,119,416 pounds of sugar. Out of this total output, Vermont, the smallest of the seventeen states supplied 7,726,817 pounds, that being 700,000 pounds more than all the other states put together.
Apart from its interest as a source of supply of sugar and syrup the maple industry is of importance in connection with the preservation of our maple forests. To-day the economic importance of reforestation is a frequent topic of discussion. Mr. R. H. Campbell, superintendent of forests for the Dominion Government, has expressed the opinion that it would be more profitable to plant maple trees that reach a diameter of eighteen inches in 120 years than yellow pine-trees that "would take only 60 years to reach the same size. The value of the maple-tree is not in its sap alone. It is much valued as a hard wood and very useful. Maple wood is used in the manufacture of agricultural implements, for the making of various parts of carriages, for the wood-work of buildings, as flooring, for the keels of sea-going vessels, for shoe-makers' pegs, saddle stocks, etc. Bird's-eye maple is much sought after for the veneering of expensive furniture and the inside finish of railway passenger coaches. Lastly, maple makes excellent fuel, and is used in the preparation of charcoal, wood alcohol and acetic acid. So the maple-tree, besides an ornamental tree of great beauty, is a sourbe of annual revenue to the farmer and to the lumberman when it is no longer useful for sugar-making or when the farmer having an excess of it may dispose of a certain quantity. The planting of maple-trees is then worth while going into. Suppose that every one of the 55,000 sugar-makers grow only ten acres, that would mean 550,000 acres, or about 1,000 square miles of land. Of all the industries, none is so typical of Canada and none yields a larger profit for the money invested and for the -care which is given to it, and that without exhausting the soil. Yet, it must be admitted that 75 per cent of Canadian territory is unfit for the cultivation (Of cereals on account of the large number of stones to be found in it, and that if those

lands were left to themselves, they would be unproductive and perhaps abandoned. Now, out of those 55,000 sugar-makers, I am informed that a bare thousand are able to manufacture a first-class product; that is due to the lack of modern methods, with which they have not yet been made sufficiently acquainted.
Mr. Speaker, I have given a brief outline only of the possibilities of our national industry. National it is indeed, because it is carried on almost exclusively in our own country, and the north-eastern American states. All countries in the world grow cereals and raise domestic cattle for consumption, but Canada has a monopoly of the manufacture of maple syrup and sugar. And if the Domin-' ion Government and the provincial legislatures concerned take the least care to promote that [DOT] industry, the Dominion Government, by practical and even radical . enactments, and the local governments by the diffusion of theoretical knowledge, wonderful results may be expected in the near future.
The Bill now before the House is opportune and again I congratulate the minister. The new proposals are for the present embodied in a general Act, but let us look forward to a not far distant time when the sugar industry will have in the statute-books its own special and more elaborate ^legislation. I am afraid, however, that section 29 of this Bill is not framed to provide Tor producers and consumers the protection that it is expected to give against adulteration. As it now reads, subsection 1 of section 29 stipulates this:
Section 29A of the Act respecting Adulterations. being chapter 133 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, as enacted by chapter 19 of the statutes of 1914, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
29A. No person will keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or sell any article of food resembling or being an imitation of maple sugar or maple syrup, or which is composed partly of maple sugar or maple syrup and which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup unless the said article or the package containing the said article is labelled with the words " imitation of maple sugar " or " imitation of maple syrup " or " compound maple sugar " or " compound maple syrup," as the case may be, in a conspicuous place upon the said article or upon the said package and in large letters easily seen, of a different colour from the label or other letters which appear on the label; the said letters to be at least one-quarter of an inch in height, printed on the same line and entirely separate from all other inscription on the label.
That subsection, it is true, takes away from adulterators the privilege enjoyed by
them to this day of selling as pure a product which was not pure in the least. It obliges them, it is true, to label their goods, and declare that their product is not pure. But the Bill does not go so far as to provide that they will have to state to what extent the sugar or syrup offered for sale is not pure; and they will still enjoy a dangerous measure of impunity. Elsewhere, however, the Bill requires of the actual producers of the pure article that their products will come up to the standard fixed by the regulations of the Department of Inland Revenue. If a standard has been set for sugar and syrup that will be sold as pure and labelled as such, how . shall it be known to what extent the articles labelled " imitation of maple syrup " or " compound maple sugar " are offensive or inoffensive. Those who prepare the adulterated article will not be to blame, except in extreme cases, because they will be authorized by law to sell the adulterated product, provided they put on the required label. That is a door open to adulterators, who - are not even now overscrupulous. The last part of subsection 1 of section 29 puts a serious handicap on the unfortunate producer of the pure article and endangers" the whole industry.
If the Bill were to be adopted as it now reads, it is my opinion and that of competent persons with whom I discussed the matter at length, that it would destroy all that has been done for that industry heretofore, and the total output would continue to decline, as I have shown it to have done by quoting statistics since 1850.
Now, why allow adulterators to set up such a competition so hurtful to honest producers. Such a competition is to a certainty bound to bring about the collapse of the maple sugar and syrup industry. Why also should we make it easy for consumers to buy a syrup made up of 99 per cent ordinary sugar and 1 per cent maple product and be deceived into the belief that he is buying a maple product in whole or in part.
It may be asked how the competition of the adulterated article may be so disastrous to the producers. The question is as easily answered as put. A farmer, for instance, sells his pure maple syrup, say $1 a gallon. Now if a merchant buys a gallon and makes five or ten gallons out of it, which he then retails at the same price as the farmer; is not such a competition ruinous for the farmer? And, on the other hand, is it hot an out-and-out theft from

the consumer who pays for an imitation of syrup or sugar or for a compound the same price he would pay for the pure article?
Looking at it from another viewpoint, the diffusion of the adulterated articles on the market prevents honest producers from obtaining a fair price for their goods.
The Quebec government, out of the Dominion grant, is helping technical education and will open three practical schools for demonstrating the modern methods of manufacturing maple sugar and maple syrup. A society, with a membership of many hundreds of producers, has been organized in the province of Quebec, and ^others will soon be formed, to secure better protection for the maple industry and to promote it among our farmers.
1 am not opposed to people making a practice of mixing with our maple syrup or sugar other uninjurious substances to make a compound article; it is their right, as it is also the consumer's own business if he cares to buy an adulterated or compound article. But then let those impure products be sold under some designation; let them be labelled "the syrup of Mr. So and So," or distinguished by any other name which may be suitable and appropriate; but let it be declared illegal and liable to severe penalties to couple -with these other names the word "maple".
I therefore suggest to the minister rand I do move, with his leave, that the following words be omitted from subsection 1 of section 29:

unless the said article or the package containing the said article is labelled with the words " imitation of maple sugar " or " imitation maple syrup " or " compound maple sugar " or " compound maple syrup," as the case may be, in a conspicuous place upon the said article or upon the said package and in large letters easily seen of a different colour from the label or other letters which appear on the label; the said letters to he at least one-quarter of an inch in height, printed on the same line and entirely separate from all other inscription on the label.
And then I will, on behalf of the Co-operative Society of Producers of Maple Syrup and Sugar, give my assent to the Bill.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Before recess we had
an interesting discussion about the Bill. I have prepared amendments w'hich, I hope, will meet the wishes of all parties. The effect of these amendments will be to leave the [DOT] law as it was before, not permitting 
any compound or adulterated maple products to be put on the market. The Bill, then, will only make slight changes in the wording of the law so as to make it enforceable. Section 1 of the Bill amends section 29 of the present law. In the proposed amendment of subsection 1, I would strike out all the words except those prohibiting the manufacture, keeping, offering for sale, or the sale of imitation or compound maple sugar or maple syrup. Subsection 2 defining adulterated maple sugar or maple syrup will stand. In subsection 3, restricting the use of the word " maple " to pure maple sugar or syrup, the words ' except as herein otherwise provided " will be dropped. Subsection 3 amends the existing law, in which the words " which is or," in combination with the rest of the subsection, have the effect of prohibiting the use of the word " maple," even on the pure maple sugar or syrup itself.


Mr. DEMERS (Translation.):: Mr. Chairman, in order to carry out the purpose of this Bill which is to make sure that the consumer will get an absolutely pure article, subsection 3 of section 29a should also be amended by omitting in lines 6' and 7, page 2 of the Bill, the word "pure." As subsection 3 now reads, it would appear that an article which is not pure might be labelled " maple sugar " or "maple syrup" provided the word "pure" be not used. I think the word " pure " should be omitted out of both lines.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Am I to
understand that my hon. friend suggests that the section should be read with the words "pure maple ", omitted ?


Marie Joseph Demers: No, simply with the word " pure " omitted. So, I move that subsection 3 be amended by omitting the word " pure " in lines 6 and 7, so that the end of this subsection may read as follows:
As is likely to make persons believe it is maple sugar or maple syrup.
If we adopted the Bill as it now reads, a manufacturer or other person who would label his articles simply " maple sugar " or " maple syrup " could not be prosecuted because he would have labelled it " pure maple ".


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The purpose of the section is to prevent the use of the word " maple " on syrup compounds as, for instance, " mapling." So this part-of the section reads as follows:

Which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup shall be labelled or marked in such manner as is likely to make persons believe it is pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup.
^ [DOT]'Tf I understand the Bill, it tends to prevent the use of the word " maple " or " era-ble " in any shape and seems to cover the point raised by my hon. friend, if I understood him properly.


Marie Joseph Demers: I differ
from the minister and am still convinced that if we wish the Bill to attain its object, the word " pure " must be omitted in lines 6 and 7.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is
mo harm in -adopting the amendment of the hon. member from St. John and Iberville, and I move that the word "pure" be omitted as he has indicated.


Jacques Bureau: Why?


Jacques Bureau: We prohibit the use by the merchant of the word " maple " or " erable " on his articles, unless they be pure, but as the Bill reads, the provision apparently would not apply to the crates; in other words, the Bill does not mention the crate containing the tins the contents of which -may be adulterated.


Jacques Bureau: In subsection 3, w.e omit the words, "resembles maple sugar or maple syrup and which." Would it not be better to omit all the words up to " and any article " in the seventh line, because the words contained in the Bill between the second and seventh lines have been put there only in case you should have allowed the sale of certain mixtures or imitations of maple syrup ?


Mr. BURNHAM:: I do not wish to disturb the hilarity of the meeting; but any one who knows anything about maple syrup knows that maple syrup may be pure yet disgusting. Maple syrup drawn from trees that grow on low ground is simply putrid. If, therefore, the minister wishes to guarantee to the public that the maple syrup shall be good, he will have to adopt some other method than simply to say that it shall be pure.


Jacques Bureau: 
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I beg to move:
1.	That section 1 he amended to read as follows :
1.	Section 29a of the Adulteration -Act, chapter 133 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, as enacted by chapter 19 of the statutes of 1914, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor;
" 29a. No person shall manufacture for sale, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or sell, any article of food resembling or being an imitation of maple sugar or maple syrup, or which is composed partly of maple sugar or maple syrup and which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup.
2.	Any maple sugar or maple syrup which is not up to the standard prescribed by the sixth schedule to this Act, or, if such standard is changed by the Governor in Council, to such standard as the Governor in Council may from time to time prescribe, shall he deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this Act.
3.	The word ' maple ' shall not he used, either alone or in combination with any other word or words, or letter or letters, on the label or other mark, illustration or device on a package containing any article of food, or on any article of food itself, which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup, and no package containing any article of food, or any article of food itself, which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup, shall be labelled or marked in such manner as is likely to make persons *believe is is pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup, and any article of food labelled or marked in violation of this subsection shall he deemed to he adulterated within the meaning of this Act."
Mr. BRODER; Would the standard referred to permit the use of any other sugar with maple sugar? When maple sugar is analysed, one cannot say whether other sugars are in it or not, because the ingredients are the same in both oases. That is a difficulty that has to be overcome.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have here the standards for maple sugar and maple syrup, which I can hand to my hon. friend.
Mr. BRODER; I shall be glad to have them.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I move that the word
" pure " be struck out in the sixth line before the words " maple sugar " and the word "pure " in the seventh line before the words " maple syrup."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On subsection 3 of section 1-use of word " maple " restricted to pure maple sugar or syrup:
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I move that the following words in the second line of page 2, after the words "maple syrup," be struck out:
And no -package containing any article of food, or any article of food itself, which Is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup.


Mr. GLASS:: I would like to understand this matter a little better. The chief sites of the manufacture of maple products are in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and there is a strong desire amongst the people in the part of the country from which I come that the fullest protection should be given to the honest product of the manufacturer of honest maple sugar. What is the reason for deleting this portion, which primarily the minister considered of sufficient importance to be incorporated in the Bill? It may be all right, but I do not understand it.


Jacques Bureau: I made the suggestion
as a result of the change made in section 29a of the existing Act by striking out that part of the section authorizing the compounding or imitation of syrup. It was necessary to repeat the same words in section 3 of 29a, but, having been struck out where they first occurred the words bad no meaning or use in subsection 3. The effect of dropping these words is that it is not permitted to put the word " maple " on anything except on the pure stuff.
On section 2-re-enactment of sections 31 and 32:
1 Mr. BUREAU: What are the changes in sections 31 and 32, of the old Act?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Section 31 is amended
by adding the words " and not less than $25 and costs " in subsection b, after the word " costs " in the third line. In the Act as" it now stands there is no minimum fine.
On section 3-false label or neglect to label:


William Frederic Kay: Does this mean that the manufacturer of maple sugar or syrup must put a label on his article?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The intention is to reach the vendor of an article resembling maple syrup and provide for a higher minimum penalty and also for an additional penalty for each subsequent offence, which section 37 as it is at present does not provide for.


William Frederic Kay: It does not mean that the
farmer must label his sugar or syrup?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not think it does. I think the words, " neglects or refuses to label or mark any article of food or drug refer to the general law. I do not think there will be any difficulty as it stands at present.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-application of penalties:
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The intention of this amendment is to give one-half the fine to the person who gives information or otherwise helps in the detection of violations of this Act. It is expected that this will be a great help to the department in the application of the law, and the detection of all violations thereof.


Jacques Bureau: I see this is to repeal section 40 of the old Act. Was there a similar provision in the old Act? I am not going to enter into an academic discussion of the principle of giving half the fine to an informer, but I do not see why the Act should be changed. There is no department in the whole Administration that has so many inspectors as the Department of Inland Revenue, and I do not see why the minister should need extra assistance from the outside public. I am willing that the producer should be fully protected, but I say that this will give , an opportunity to unscrupulous men to attempt blackmail. For instance, under the provincial regulations in regard to liquor licenses there have been cases where complaints have been made by informers, who when the trial came on had no evidence whatever, and the department had incurred a lot of expense for nothing in getting samples and having them analysed. This will just give an opportunity to, some men to go around legpulling with the merchants and threatening to lay information against them for dealing in a product that is not within the provisions of the Act. Considering that the minister has at his disposal a great number of inspectors who go around the stores every day in the year, and have the privilege of taking any samples off the shelves and forwarding them to the laboratories for analysis, I do not see why this inducement should be given to the blackmailer.


Mr. BRODER:: The department cannot have an inspector in every sugar bush, and some of this dishonest work is done in the sugar bush as well as in the shop; that is,

dishonest sugar makers will use refined sugar and that sort of thing to increase the quantity of their syrup, and it is a difficult thing to get at that. The officials in all the departments here at Ottawa would not be sufficient to watch all the sugar bushes in the country. We want to protect the honest man.


Jacques Bureau: If you get an honest man to lay the information, I am with you; but generally it is a scoundrel that does it.


Andrew Broder: The fact is that with all the inspection we have there is a lot of spurious syrup being sold in the shops of Ottawa to-day. So far, the enforcement of the law has not been effective.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member for Dundas knows very well that it is not the honest, respectable kind of citizen that will turn informer. The only persons who will do this kind of work are those who expect to make a little money out of it. If a man has a grudge against another he may try to get even by laying information and getting the penalty under this section. The honest man who has any complaint to make does not need this inducement. If I know that somebody is cheating the public, I will tell the inspector to go down to So and So and take a sample of his syrup for analysis, because I have reason to believe it is not. what it ought to be. But this proposal to give half the fine to the informer will not appeal to the respectable element of the community.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I might remind my hon. friend that the information is given to the officers of the department, who ascertain whether the sample is adulterated. I think that is a safeguard against the abuses of which my hon. friend is afraid.


Charles Marcil: In oases of prosecution under this law, in whose name is the case made out ?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am not quite sure, but in the name of the department, I think.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mi^ht I call the attention of the minister to the remarks of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau). This legislation which the minister is introducing of giving power to the informer to prosecute is becoming obsolete. It used to be very common in former days, but in recent legislation it has been eliminated. Only two days ago the Finance Minister struck 114
out a similar provision in the new Taxes Bill.


Mr. GREEN:: I do not think that any
harm will be done to the honest dealer or manufacturer. It is certainly true that with all the machinery the Government has, it is impossible to put a full check on all the' avenues of deception that are possible. I think that this provision is perfectly proper, but I think that the word " may " in the third line should be changed to " shall." I should like to know why the payment of a fine to a man who is entitled to it, should be optional with the department. If it is right that the man should be paid for giving this information, let him have the remuneration to which he is entitled by virtue of this Act.


Jacques Bureau: If you are going to do that, why not state the exact amount which the informer shall receive, and let us put it in the Bill ?


Gustave Benjamin Boyer: The provisions of this section contain nothing, to my mind, that is new. There are many acts in existence which impose fines that are either wholly or in part handed over to the informer.
The hon. member for Three-Rivers (Mr. Bureau) fears that it may become an instrument of blackmail. I do hot entertain the same fear. The person who is accused of selling an adulterated article will not be sentenced simply on the information being laid, because before anything is done the officers of the Department of Inland Revenue will make a test of the sugar or syrup complained of to find out if the act has really been violated as alleged. I believe the provision is preventive and will have some deterring influence. I am therefore in favour of the section.


Mr. LAFORTUNE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to put in a few remarks regarding this Bill. I have listened to what has been said by the minister and it seems to me that the proposal made by him and incorporated in the Bill that it be allowed to put on the market adulterated maple sugar or syrup, is objectionable and should be rejected.
Mr. iBLONDIN (Translation):	Amendments have been adopted and this section was struck out. I believe the hon. member was not present at the time.


David Arthur Lafortune: So
much the better. If I understand rightly, it will then be illegal to label the crates



with the words "maple syrup" coupled with the word " compound."


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My hon.
friend was absent and I shall lor his information summarize the amendments. The new Act does not modify essentially the old Act; it merely changes the wording so as to facilitate the enforcement of the old Act as it now stands. We have omitted only those words which might make the law more difficult of enforcement.


David Arthur Lafortune: I understand that under the Bill now under consideration, the sale of maple syrup or sugar is prohibited unless it be pure.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Strictly
pure.


David Arthur Lafortune: Otherwise by allowing the sale of an adulterated product, would have meant the destruction of the maple industry, which is such a source of profit to our farmers, and I, for one, should have objected.
*Bill reported.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals) the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Sevigny in the Cha'ir:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act and amendments thereto, and to provide that the Minister of Railways and Canals may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, lease or otherwise acquire that portion of the railway of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company known as the Lake Superior branch, extending from Lake Superior Junction to the city of Fort William, in Ontario, including terminal facilities and accommodation works of-the said company, or of any other company, and, for all the purposes of section 9 of the said Act, may provide, by purchase, lease or otherwise, rolling stock and equipment, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and such other company, shall each be authorized on its part to deal accordingly with the said line of railway or terminal facilities and accommodation works as the case may be; that subsections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of section 361 of the Railway Act, and section 29 chapter 122 of the statutes of 1903, shall not apply to any such lease or to anything done under the preceding provisions ; that the Government Railways Act shall apply to any line of railway including terminal facilities and accommodation works so leased or acquired; and that the expenditures made under the Act to be founded on this resolution, or under chapter 43 of the statutes of 1914, shall be a charge against the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Mr. COCHRANE:: The object of this resolution is to take authority to operate the Transcontinental railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, providing the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company do not enter into a lease to do so, and also to authorize some arrangement for a lease, or running rights, from Lake Superior Junction to Fort William. The chief engineer of the Transcontinental railway has given a certificate that the road' is complete for operation. The Government have no desire to operate this road, and we are willing and anxious that the Grand Trunk Pacific shall enter into an arrangement for operating it, but providing they do not do so, we want to take authority to pay the expense of operating it out of the consolidated revenue fund. The reason we have taken this matter up by way of resolution, instead of asking for a vote in the Estimates, is that we have made no estimate of what we would require to operate the road this year. We hope that the Grand Trunk Pacific will enter into a lease, but they have not come to a decision yet, and we do not know what amount of traffic we may have to provide for. If business continues as it is to-day on the Intercolonial railway, we could use some of our rolling stock on the National Transcontinental railway.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Mr. Chairman, this is quite a far-reaching proposal. I am afraid it goes farther in its wording than the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals thinks or has expressed to the House. Under this proposition the Government could expropriate that branch line and all its elevators and. the elevators of any other concern at Fort William without their consent. I do not know whether the Government intends to do that or not. Let me read, in order that the committee may see whether I am correct or not:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act and amendments thereto, and to provide that the Minister of Railways and Canals may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, lease or otherwise acquire that portion of the railway of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company known as the Lake Superior branch, extending from Lake Superior Junction to the city of Fort William, in Ontario, including terminal facilities and accommodation works of the said company or of any other company.
Under this resolution the Government is taking the right not only to lease, if the Grand Trunk Pacific is wTill.ing to lease, but to expropriate.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think the
terminals belong to the Grand Trunk Pacific; they belong to another company.


George Perry Graham: You may expropriate
them no -matter from whom.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: Those are pretty large powers for the Government to take. Suppose there are reasons why the lease is not entered into by the Grand Trunk Pacific at the present time. The Government now takes power to take the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific away from it in the meantime or to take the terminals belonging to any other company at Fort William for its own purposes. Suppose it should transpire that after the railway is completed, as' it is not now, the company would be ready to enter into a lease under the agreement, this Government would own the -terminals belonging to some otheT company, or to. the Grand Trunk Pacific-, and the Government would also own that portion of the line from Lake Superior Junction to Fort William, some 180 -miles in length. Would not that -complicate the situation? I submit that it would. While I think some arrangement should be entered into for the present by which somebody will -operate this road until such time as it as fully completed, it would be a mistake for the Government to go as far as to purchase very expensive property, either by expropriation or otherwise, some of which does not belong to this company at all, because the Government would have this property on its hands at the time when a lease could be legitimately entered into with the Grand Trunk Pacific. The situation would ,-be reversed; the Government would be frying to get the Grand Trunk Pacific to take something from it in the way of purchase or release. It might fee that the other companies who own these terminals would be placed in a very peculiar position as well as the Government. The line ought to be operated by somebody, but I think it is clear from the correspondence that the Government is not in a position under the agreement to lease the line at present to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. I do not say, mark you, that the Government is not in a position to make an arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to operate on some terms, or with somebody to operate on some terms, or to operate the road itself, but the correspondence clearly shows that the line is not completed as provided for in the agreement between the company and the Government. The fact remains that the terminals at Quebec are not completed and will not be completed for a 114J
year or two. The station that was to be constructed by the Canadian Pacific Railway for the joint use of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific railway in the city of Quebec, so far from being completed has not yet been started. The-small station at Champlain market has only just been commenced. The Government has purchased a line to reach from its main line down to the workshops at the city of Quebec, hut that line is not-completed because the Government is this session asking for money to put it in a usable condition. The shops, which have been declared by Sir William Whyte and acknowledged by every railway man to be part of the system, are just being started in the city of Quebec, and this road cannot operate atjs 'through traffic even if it paid no attention at all to the city of Quebec without having repair shops in that city.


Francis Cochrane: How do they run from Winnipeg to the Coast without shops?


George Perry Graham: They have smaller shops at points.


Francis Cochrane: So have we.


George Perry Graham: That does not alter the fact that these shops are a part of the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. Sir William Whyte's finding absolutely stated they were part of the road, and if they be not part of the road why is this Government building them under the agreement? Another point is that the Prime Minister said in the city of Quebec, and the plans distinctly show it as presented to the House at one time, that a tunnel was to be constructed in the city of Quebec as part of that ischeme, and that tunnel has not been started, and no tenders have been asked for to construct it, and I doubt if there are even plans for it.
The terms of the lease, so far as the payment is concerned, were to be based on the cost of the road, and this road not being completed, how can the rentals be arrived at before the Government knows what the cost of the road is going to be? I had better not put it that way, however-that the road is not completed, the Government admits in this correspondence, and it also admits it in the Estimates before us, because $5,000,000 are asked for to be expended on the Transcontinental railway, and it may be that even that sum will not complete it.

I am pointing this out to show that the Government should hesitate before entering into a permanent arrangement, because nobody knows yet, so far as I can find in the correspondence, that the Grand Trunk Pacific is not ready to take over this road when the Government has completed it and is ready to hand it over to them. To make clear the position taken by the Government, I shall refer to the corespondence. The Chief Engineer of the National Transcontinental Railway, Mr. Gordon Grant, has said the road is completed for operation, but in the same letter in- which he states that, he has some strong qualifications. In the correspondence between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific it is positively admitted that there are works now under construction for the National Transcontinental railway which are not completed und will not be completed for some time. It is also shown that there are many places along the line where the company does not admit that the work is completed, and the company's engineer asks the Government's engineer to have a joint inspection made, so that they might arrive at just what the real conditions are. To show that I am borne out in my supposition that the road is not completed, I shall refer to the correspondence of the Government with the com-ipany. 'I find on January 1.3, 1913, this letter to the Minister of Railways from the President of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company :	.
Dear Sir,-In view of the completion of the National Transcontinental railway, I think it desirable that the necessary con-
4 p.m. ferences should be had, and arrangements made for the drafting and settling of the lease by the Government to the company of the Eastern division, which is stipulated for by the agreement of the 29th July, 1903.
The terms of the instrument are of course provided for and generally determined by the provisions of the agreement, but questions will doubtless arise in the drafting which will require consideration and settlement by the parties, and I think that suitable disposition should be made for taking up this work without delay. Probably it will be well that your legal agents and those of the Government should confer upon the subject, and X shall be glad if you will issue the necessary instructions with the view to getting the lease ready for execution. X shall be pleased to hear from you on this subject at your earliest convenience.
Tours very truly,
F. Cochrane.
E. ,T. Chamberlin, President,
Grand Trunk Pacific Company.
On January 14, the very next day, the President of the Grand Trunk Pacific replied thus:

Dear Mr. Cochrane,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th instant, stating "that in view of the completion of the National Transcontinental railway you think it desirable that the necessary conferences should be had and arrangements made for the drafting and settling of the lease by the Government to the company of the Eastern division, which is stipulated for by the agreement of the 29th July, 1903."
As you further state, questions will doubtless arise in the drafting which will require consideration and settlement by the parties. Apart entirelv from the important question as to whether or not the National Transcontinental railway has been completed as contemplated by and in accordance with the agreement to which you refer, it appears to me that before any substantial progress can be made in the direction indicated in your letter, the question as to the sum, which, as representing the cost of construction, the company is to be asked to pay interest on under the agreement, must be considered and determined.	[DOT]
I feel sure that you fully recognize the very great importance of this phase of the question and would therefore respectfully request that you be good enough to furnish 'me with a statement of such cost at as early a date as reasonably convenient.
Very truly yours,
E. J. Chamberlin.
Hon. F. Cochrane.
In that letter Mr. Chamberlain refers to the sum on which the rental is to be paid, which is the entire cost of the road when completed, and which, I submit, cannot be ascertained until the road is completed Secondly, he refers to the great question whether the road is completed or not. On January 18, Mr. Gordon Grant submitted a letter to the Minister of Railways as to the cost, I presume in pursuance of information asked for in Mr. Chamberlin's letter. The letter is as follows:
January' 18, 1915.
Hon. F. Cochrane,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-In accordance with your request of the 15th instant, I hand you herewith a statement showing the cost of construction of the National Transcontinental railway from Moncton to Winnipeg. You will note that the total cash expenditure to date amounts to $149,479,550.02, and that, adding the interest, as per the terms of clause No. 15, National Transcontinental Railway Act of 1903, the total is $170,123,191.75. Add to this unpaid estimates, approximately $1,900,000. The total to date is $172,023,191.75. The above total does not include anything for contractors' claims, whtcn I now have under consideration, and which may be settled amicably or in the Exchequer Court.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) Gordon Grant,
Chief Engineer.
It will be remembered that that is only the cost of the railway to date. I presume that that would refer to December 31, as the letter is dated January. 18?
march 31, 1915


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: That total does not include contractors' claims, which may be referred to the Exchequer Court or which may he settled amicably. It is clear therefore that the actual cost had not been arrived at even at that date.
The Minister of Railways submitted this statement to Mr. Chamberlin on January 23. His letter is merely a submission of the figures, and therefore I need not read it. On January 25, Mr. Chamberlin acknowledged the receipt of that letter. On February 2, Mr. Gordon Grant, Chief Engineer of the Government, writes to Mr. Woods, Acting Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. His letter clearly explains itself. It is pointed out that the construction and the acceptance of this road is subject to the joint action of the Chief Engineer of the Government and the Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Without this joint acceptance, there can be no real finality as to the completion of the road. The letter is as follows:
February 2, 1915.
H. A. Woods, Esq.,
Chief Engineer or Acting Chief Engineer, Grand Trunk Pacific railway,
Winnipeg, Man.
Dear Sir,-Under section 7 of the schedule of the National Transcontinental Railway Act, 1903, it is stipulated that the work to be done on the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of the chief engineer appointed by the Government and the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The Government is of the opinion that this provision has been complied with in every way; but to put the matter of acceptance into desirable form, I enclose herewith formal acceptance which I have executed as chief engineer for the Government, and I would ask you to kindly sign as chief engineer or acting.chief engineer for the company. The enclosure is in duplicate, and you are at liberty to retain one of the copies for the company.
Tours truly,
(Sgd.) Gordon Grant,
Chief Engineer.
Accompanying that was a form of joint acceptance for the Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific to sign. He refused to sign that form, as he contended that the road was not completed. I will read his letter a little later on. There is another letter from the Minister of Railways, which I think in fairness to him I should put on Hansard, to make the record fairly complete. It follows up his letter of January 2.3, in which the figures ot the chief
engineer were given. The letter is as follows:
February 3, 1915.
E. J. Chamberlin,
General Manager Grand Trunk Pacific Ry., Montreal, P.Q.
Dear Mr. Chamberlin:
With further reference to my letter of 23rd January, in which I enclosed the statement of the cost of construction of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway, I beg to point out that it is not intended that the item therein inserted as necessary to cover the completion of certain works shall be included at the present time, in the amount upon which interest should now he calculated. What may be incomplete is not at the present time an essential portion of the National Transcontinental railway, and it is only upon the cost of the work as completed that it is proposed to calculate interest now. This cost the Government is having a report upon by auditors, and the result of the report will be made known to you ir. due course.
Tours very truly,
(Sgd.) Frank Cochrane.
That letter, of course, states quite clearly that the amount given in the former letter is not considered the final amount upon which the rental shall be based, because the minister says in so many words: This amount is up to December 31, 1914; but at a later date, when the road is completed- that is the only inference that can be drawn -the total cost of the National Transcontinental will be computed and the interest on that amount will be the rental finally decided upon under the lease and the Act of 1903. That clearly indicates that the minister does not think the road is completed. The chief engineer takes the view that the road can be operated as it is at present, but the minister and all the correspondence admit that the road is not completed under the agreement.


Francis Cochrane: Is a road ever completed?


George Perry Graham: It might be said that a road is never completed, and I think the minister says so in one of his letters; but it can be completed under an agreement, although it may be everlastingly requiring changes. The minister's letter makes it clear that he thinks the road is completed so that it can he operated.
On. February 3, there is another letter in which the minister again urges the company to execute the lease,- and he refers to the amount to be expended in rolling stock for the equipment of the eastern division, $5,000,000 being the amount?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: The minister urges that the company prepare to furnish the rolling stock for the equipment of the eastern division. It is quite clear that that is the substance of the letter.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: There is no request in that letter to execute the lease?


George Perry Graham: Perhaps the request to -execute the lease was prior to that?


Arthur Meighen: It was later.


George Perry Graham: There is another letter in the file under date of February . 3, but I think it is merely a duplicate of the letter which I read a few minutes ago. Mr. Chamberlin replies to this correspondence on February 5-merely a formal acknowledgment. On February -9, the Solicitor General writes to the -chief engineer, but as this is only in reference to telephone lines, it is not necessary in the argument I am -making. On February 10, Mr. Gordon Grant, the chief engineer, re-phes to the letter of the Solicitor General in reference to telephone lines.
Now I come to the reply of Mr. Woods, the acting chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, to the letter of Mr. Gordon Grant, chief engineer of the Government, in which he enclosed a joint acceptance to be signed by Mr. Woods, and which the latter" declines to sign. Here is the reply of Mr Woods:
Winnipeg-, Man., Feb. 11, 1915, Mr. Gordon Grant.
Dear Sir,-I have yours of February 2, file 12,259, in which it is stated that in the Government s opinion the National Transcontinental railway is now completed, and with which you enclose form of -acceptance which you desire me to sign certifying, in fact, that the National Transcontinental railway is completed and satisfactory to this company. This is the first intimation I have ever received that even the Government consider the line fully completed, and that you also consider it completed. Tour opinion in regard to this is different from my own, and I have therefore to say that I cannot sign the acceptance committing the Grand Trunk Pacific railway to the agreement proposed in your letter. I think before such an acceptance can be given there- will have to be an inspection of the line throughout, and of the many items I think are incomplete an understanding will have to be arrived at as to what shall -be capital charge in such cases.
Yours truly,
H. A. Woods.
Thus, Mr. Woods says in so many words that there are many items which the company thinks are incomplete, and that be-

fore the company can think of joining in the acceptance, an -inspection will have to be made, particularly of those portions which the company say are incomplete, so that a decision may -be arrived at as to what capital charges will be allowed-


John Hampden Burnham: Did the hon. gentleman, when he was in offi-ce, provide for ascertaining the meaning of the word " complete "?


George Perry Graham: There is provision made for arbitration and so on, I think. I cannot recall the details at this -moment. It was not to be " complete"; a thing cannot be " complete," but it was to be " complete " under a certain agreement.


John Hampden Burnham: How was that to be ascertained ? In what state of affairs would you inform them that it was complete and they be required to take it over ?
Mr, GRAHAM: The terms of the agreement say that the road as constructed shall be accepted by the chief engineer of the company and the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and if any difference arises it is to be referred to a board -composed of -these chief engineers and a third party of their choosing; and if they do not agree as to the third member of the board, the Chief Justice of Canada shall make the appointment.	[DOT]


John Hampden Burnham: Was the board's decision to be final ?


George Perry Graham: I think so.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is m error, and I do not think he wishes it to go on record that way. The agreement makes no such provision as to the question of completion.


George Perry Graham: It does as to acceptance. It must be subject to joint acceptance, and if there -be a difference as to the construction-


Arthur Meighen: Not as to -completion.


George Perry Graham: I did not say " completion;" I used the word "construction." If the line is " constructed " it must be " completed." Let -me read section 7. We are at a point now where what we do is of national importance. I want to have the case stated wi-th exact fairness. The question raised at this moment -has no bearing on the argument I was -making, but I will read the clause and -hon. members can judge what they are to understand from it as business men:

In order to insure, for the protection of the company as lessees of the eastern division of the said railway, the economical construction thereof in such a manner that it can be operated to the best advantage, it is hereby agreed that the specifications for the construction of the eastern division shall be submitted to .and approved of by, the company for the commencement of the work, and that the said work shall be done according to the said specifications and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of the chief engineer appointed by the Government and the chief engineer of the company, and, in the event of differences as to the specifications, or in case the said engineers shall differ as to the work, the questions in dispute shall be determined by the said engineers and a third arbitrator, to be chosen in the manner provided in paragraph four of this agreement.
I am not versed in the law, but, speaking as a man who has had a little business experience, I take that to provide explicitly that if the engineers could not agree as to when the work was fully performed they were to refer the matter to arbitration. I do not think any other meaning could be taken out of that clause.
Now, let me go back to the correspondence. Here is a letter to the Solicitor General from Mr. Gordon Grant. It refers to the enclosure sent to Mr. Woods. Some of this correspondence directed by the Chief Engineer to the Solicitor General is merely a repetition of what I have read already. Now I come to the letter of Mr. Chamberlain in reply to the Minister of Railways. T may say so that the committee will understand clearly, that this is a letter in reply to a letter from the Minister of Railways urging the company to make provision of the rolling stock necessary for the operation of this road. Mr. Chamberlin's letter is as follows:
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway,
Montreal, Can., February 15, 1915.
Dear Mr. Cochrane,-I beg to acknowledge your communication of the 3rd instant, in regard to the provisions of the agreement of 29 th July, 1903, relative to the providing of equipment for the eastern division. In reply I would call your attention to Clause 20 of the agreement, which as you will see provides that " when completed the said eastern division shall be leased to and operated by the company for a period of fifty years." Clause 22 also indicated-
I take it, that should be " indicates."
-quite clearly that the equipment of the value of $20,000,000 to be provided, of which $5,000,000 worth is to be supplied for the operation of the eastern division, is to be the first equipment for the completed road. I do not understand that the Government claims that the eastern divisions is as yet completed in accordance with the agreement, and your other letter to me of the 3rd instant bears me out in this. That
being so, you will, I think, agree that it would be improvident and unwise on the part of the company to proceed to acquire under the present unfavourable conditions, equipment involving the expenditure of so large a sum, and which pending the completion of the line would to a very great extent at least, not only remain idle, but materially decrease in value.
Yours very truly,
E. J. Chamberlin.
Hon. Frank Cochrane, .
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.	,
The president of the Grand Trunk Pacific formed the same opinion that I have of the letter of the Minister of Railways, because in making the assertion that the road was incomplete he says: " and your other letter to me of the 3rd inst. bears me out in this." He is convinced by the letter of the Minister of Railways-which, I think, must convince anybody-that in the mind of the Government, while the road might be fit for operation in a sense or partially, it was not completed as provided in the agreement with the company.
This is merely a litter from the Solicitor General forwarding a letter of Mr. Woods to the minister, to which I referred. On March 6, the Solicitor General wrote a letter to the chief engineer, which I think ought to be put on record:
March 6, 1915.
Gordon Grant, Esq.,
Chief Engineer, National Transcontinental Ottawa.
Dear Sir-Referring to your letter of the 23rd February and to the refusal of Mr. H. A. Woods, acting engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to sign the acceptance dated 2nd February, 1915, it is to be noticed that Mr. Woods appears to base his refusal upon the claim that the road cannot be said to be completed within the meaning of sect'on 20 of the agreement schedule to the National Transcontinental Railway Act, 1903. Mr. Woods, I presume, has in mind certain portions of the work which at present, or rather at December 31, 1914, the date up to which the audit is being made, may he said to be under construction. I have always understood, both from yourself and from the commission, that although there are such portions that are still under construction, the same are not essential for the immediate operation of the entire line, and consequently that it would not be reasonable to wait for their completion until the said section 20 was acted upon.
Would you be good enough, therefore, to state if in your opinion the eastern division was on the 31st of December, 1914, completed so far as is essential for the efficient operation of the entire line at that time and now. Also, would you kindly detail with such definiteness as you can, such portions as were on such date still under construction, and in respect of which expenditures had been made chargeable against the cost of construction hut which were not said to he taken over as part of the leased premises and enjoyed by the lessees. May I


Francis Cochrane: They deny it now. I agree with my hon. friend that there is enough on file to establish it.


George Perry Graham: I know that such a letter was received, and I cannot conceive of its going astray. It was received in connection with some other correspondence.

My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will remember that at the time the letter was received I immediately took it to Council to show that the contention of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company on that particular point had been conceded by them. But, even on this, let me see if my contention is not admitted by the chief engineer. He takes first the Leonard shops as not completed. The Leonard shops are to be part of the work as completed; everybody admits it. If they are not, then the Transcontinental Commission should not be charged with them. It may be possible to operate the line partially without these shops, but they are part of the scheme under the agreement; there can be no question about that. Mr. Grant then says:
The Leonard shops, Quebec, are not completed, but we ought to have them available by the time they are required.
They are certainly not available now; they will not be available for a month after the shop buildings are completed, as they have to be fully equipped, which is no small task; and no person will contend that these shops will be ready for months and months yet. Mr. Grant admits that this part of the equipment of the line is absolutely uncompleted.
So this is the position. The branch lines of the Leonard shops will not be required until the shops are sufficiently completed to be used. First, the shops are not ready and will not be ready for a good many months; and secondly, the line is not ready, but it will not be needed until the shops are ready. That reminds me of the old story that so many of you have heard about the school board down South that met to discuss the question of erecting a new school-house. First, they resolved to build a new school-house; secondly, they resolved to build a new school-house out of the logs of the old school; and thirdly, they decided to continue to use the old school-house while they were erecting the new one. And so it is with these shops. The shops are not completed, but they will not be needed until the road is ready; and the road is not completed, but it will not be needed till the shops are ready. That of course is not an answer to the question, Is the road completed? I think that is very clear, so far as Mr. Gordon Grant is concerned. He admits this part of the scheme is not complete. Then there is a letter from the Solicitor General just forwarding this correspondence. These accounts were referred for audit to Mr. W. C. King and Mr. Graham Bell. Mr Bell is head of the auditing branch of the Department of Railways and Canals, and there is not a better man in the service of the Dominion in any department. Let me just read their letter:
Ottawa, March 23, -1915.
Dear Sir,-Referring to the Order in Council of February 3, 1915, appointing the undersigned to make an audit of the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway.
We beg to call your attention to a letter received from the Solicitor General, a copy of which is hereto attached, from which it appears that the " cost of construction " of the eastern division as completed on the 31st December, 1914, within the meaning of section 20 of the agreement scheduled to the Act of 1903 should not include expenditures made on and in respect of certain works which were still under construction. The result will be that the " cost of construction " as a basis upon which to ascertain the rental to be paid by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company at this date will be very considerably less than the actual cost upon completion of the said additional works now under way.
Is it your desire that our report should Include the statement of such actual cost as well as the <sCDst of construction " as so limited?
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) Graham Bell, (Sgd.) W. C. King.
Hon. F. Cochrane,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.
These gentlemen when asked to audit these accounts immediately pointed out that the accounts they were asked to audit did not cover the full cost of the Transcontinental, and that the rental computed upon those accounts would be considerably less than the amount which the country ought to receive on the full cost of the construction of the road when completed. The next is a letter from the Minister of Railways to the Solicitor General enclosing the report prepared, I think, by Messrs. Bell and King. On the 25th of March, just a few days ago, the minister wrote another letter to Mr. .Chamberlin in which he urged the railway to action. I believe that no reply has been received to that.


Francis Cochrane: No.


George Perry Graham: I will read the letter, as it is the last one sent to Mr. Chamberlin.
25th March, 1915.
Dear Mr. Chamberlin,-As intimated to you in previous correspondence, the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway is completed within the meaning of section 20 of the agreement between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, dated 29th day of July' 1903, scheduled to the National Transcontinental Railway Act, chapter 71 of 3 Edward VII, and the said division is ready for operation.

I find a reference in your correspondence to certain additional works still under construction by the Transcontinental Railway Commission, which additional works it was contemplated by the commission and by your company would be ultimately used in connection with the road as now completed. The Government, however, having been advised that the eastern division for purposes of operation, has been reported by the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway Commission as completed and ready to be leased, is of the opinion that it is in the public interest that such lease be now entered into. You will readily understand that were any other interpretation as to date of completion to be placed upon the agreement with your company it would mean the postponement for a very considerable length of time of the taking over of this extensive line of railway by the Grand Trunk Pacific, with results that might be incompatible with the public interest. Such a postponement would be to a date very hard, if not impossible to determine, as in one sense a railway can never be said to be complete. The responsibility for such a postponement I must decline on behalf of the Government to take.
The Government have under section 15 of this agreement ascertained the cost of construction, in the manner therein provided, and in so doing have included only such expenditure as has gone into work on the eastern division as now completed and ready to be leased.
I therefore request that the lease referred to in sections 6 and 20 of the above mentioned agreement be entered into. The Government has had prepared a form of lease embodying the provisions required to be included in the same by statute and by agreements between your company and the Government. The rental reserved is based on the cost of construction ascertained as aforesaid. This lease I now hand you on behalf of the Government. You will observe attached to the form of lease is a Schedule B, which schedule should contain a description of the rolling stock marked and assigned by the company to the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway. I trust that such rolling stock as the statute directs has been provided and assigned accordingly, and as particulars of the same are now not in our possession,I would request that the schedule be duly filled in by you.
On behalf of the Government I beg to request that this lease be executed by your company and assuming that the schedule as so filled in will represent rolling stock fulfilling the conditions of the agreement, and provided and assigned as therein set out, I undertake that this lease will be promptly executed on behalf of the Government.
It has been and is my desire that there be nothing contained in the lease as drafted and now presented not strictly provided for by statutory requirements, and nothing omitted directed by statute to be included. This desire I believe is lived up to in the form of lease enclosed. Should however, in your opinion the form contain any feature to which reasonable objection can be taken, or omit any necessary provision, I am prepared on behalf of the Government to confer with your company and to endeavour by every proper means to come to a common basis, and I will make every effort to do so consistent with the requirements imposed on us by statute.
That you may have before you the method by which the cost of construction, and con-

sequently the annual rental, is arrived at, I am enclosing you a copy of the report of our auditors thereon and of the schedules thereto annexed.
Yours very truly.
There is no signature, but I presume the letter was written by the Minister of Railways.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: The minister says in his letter that he is enclosing the report of the auditors. The auditors themselves tell the minister in a letter that the rental based on their audit would not be the full rental which the company ought to pay, as that rental up to December 31, 1914, would be based on the uncompleted cost, the entire work of construction of the line not being completed. I think that is a fair statement of the letter I have read. It is admitted that the rental now arrived at will be for the present only,, and that another rental must be arrived at when the works are completed. 'That is the tenor of tire correspondence. If that were not the case the Government would have to meet the railway company and come to an arrangement as to the cost of the completion of the works, the interest on that amount to begin as rental from the time of completion of the now uncompleted work. There is nok chance of getting out of putting in all these works as part of the cost of construction. If the Government could make an arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific I would hold up both hands for it, but I think that the correspondence indicates that the Government is not prepared to execute a lease under the agreement, as the transcontinental railway is not complete.


Francis Cochrane: To relieve my hon.
friend's mind on that point, I may say that we have not put it all in; we have only put in what they can use, and other parts will come in afterwards.


George Perry Graham: That is just my point. It is an amicable arrangement. The minister says that he only proposes to put in now so much of the scheme as it is claimed is completed and the balance is to be put in afterwards.


Francis Cochrane: Deducting the Quebec
bridge and things of that kind which they cannot use at the present time.


George Perry Graham: I will try to make that
clear. This letter has reference to the money expended to date, but it has no reference to the money to be expended.

It refers to money already expended on works not complete. The company claim that they have no right to pay interest on works incomplete when they are not in a position to use these works. The situation is very clear-that the Government, under the agreement, is not in a position to execute the lease because they cannot tell the company what the cost of the road is. They can tell what the cost of the road is up to date, but the Quebec station is not completed and that is. included in the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Shops are being constructed by the Transcontinental Railway Commission, which is the Minister. The Champlain Market station is not completed. A line to connect the shops with the main line at Cap Rouge has been purchased from the Canadian Northern Railway, and there is an amount in the Estimates now to make that road fit for the traffic of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The terminals in Quebec city are not completed; they are scarcely started. They will not be completed for months and months, if not for more than a year; they cannot possibly be. That being the case, should we not approach this matter in another way, instead of saying to the Grand Trunk Pacific: We take it for granted that you are not going to take over this line, and we are going to operate it ourselves? We are not entitled to say that under the agreement, because we are not prepared to hand the road over in the completed state.


John Hampden Burnham: Why was it not arranged in the first place that it would be amicably taken over?


George Perry Graham: I cannot tell my hon.
friend why it was not; I am speaking of the agreement as it exists. We are all bound to admit that it is in the interest of the *country that this road should be operated. We all agree as to that, but we want to arrive at some way by which it can be operated in a measure, that is with the exception of the uncompleted work, and that finally the company can be asked to take it over under lease. But we are not in a position to do that now and we are not in a position by reason of anything the company have done to expropriate their property, as this resolution proposes to give the G-overnment power from Lake Superior Junction to Fort William. A practicable arrangement ought to be made in some way for the operation of this line until the Government can say to the company:	Here
is the whole scheme completed; are you going to take it over or are you not? If not, we can run it ourselves and we are going to take over your line from Lake Superior Junction to Fort William. But at the present time the Government are not in a position to say to the company:	You
must take over this line, and if you do not you will violate the agreement, because, I submit, the line is not finished according to the agreement. I am firmly convinced that some arrangement ought to be made for the operation of the road.


John Hampden Burnham: Would not a practical arrangement of that sort be a surrender?


George Perry Graham: It would not be a surrender because the road is not completed. If the road were completed it would be a surrender. The correspondence shows that it is not completed except for the purpose of operation and it is not available for complete operation in my humble judgment. As to taking over the road finally; I am glad that the correspondence does not indicate that the compar- has declined to take over the road. If the Government go about it in a peaceful manner I think some arrangement could be made for the operation of this line and for the use of the Superior Junction-Fort William line if necessary until such time as the Government have the undoubted right to say to the company: We have fulfilled our part of the agreement; are you going to execute this lease? I would go a little further. Speaking for myself as a private individual I do not know that I would object to seeing this Government operating the Grand Trunk Pacific in connection with the Intercolonial railway. In that I am speaking for myself solely. If the time ever came that there should be a disagreement and the company should decline to take over the road, which I do not think it will do, a worse thing could happen to the Dominion of Canada than that the Intercolonial should be hitched up with the Grand Trunk Pacific and given its own line through to the western provinces. However, that is by the way. The point I was urging on the Government was, first, the necessity of operating the line in some way, and I was cautioning them that they were not going about it in the right way, because I believe the better judgment of the people will lead them to the conclusion, after seeing the correspondence, that under the agreement the line is not completed, and that the Government is not in a position to execute a lease

except of a temporary kind even if the company were willing to agree to it.


John Hampden Burnham: May I ask the hon. gentlemen why it is that this idea of his was not carried out before?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend and I
were not in the House at the time or we might have had all these things provided for. Unfortunately, the Dominion was without our services and Parliament seemed to take another view.


Francis Cochrane: There are only one or two things in regard to which I desire to take issue with my hon. friend (Mr. Graham). The first is in reference to the entrance into the city of Quebec. The Grand. Trunk Pacific could run their trains into the Canadian Pacific railway depot and right down to the docks and use the Canadian Pacific railway terminals at present. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) shakes his head.


George Perry Graham: You are mistaken about what he is shaking it for. I said to my right hon. friend that that had nothing to do with my argument that the road is not completed under the agreement.


Francis Cochrane: But they might run in there and have all the facilities that the Canadian Pacific railway have to-day for handling the traffic. There is a mistake in Mr. Grant's letter in that respect. I am not finding any fault with my hon. friend for making the statement he did upon reading Mr. Grant's letter. But the actual fact is that the Grand Trunk Pacific could run into the station and go right down into the terminals and docks there. Another point is that I understand the Grand Trunk Pacific take the ground, though not in writing, that the road is not completed until the Quebec bridge is completed. That means that, it will not be completed before 1917. I think it should be ready in 1917.


George Perry Graham: If they do they have not a leg to stand on.


Francis Cochrane: Perhaps they may not have a leg to stand on but that is the argument they make.


George Perry Graham: I would like to see it in writing that they take that ground.


Francis Cochrane: I have gone over the Grand Trunk Pacific in daylight from Moncton to Winnipeg, and if the Grand Trunk Pacific claim that the contracts which they themselves tendered on and got are eom-

pleted, then I will put up the other contracts alongside of them and say that they are completed also. I am not an engineer but I take a conrmonsense view of it and I absolutely say that if their contracts are completed then the other contracts for the balance of the road are also completed. Now, I desire to say a word in reference to the shops. Almost any lawyer will tell you that it is a debatable point whether we are required under the Act to build the shops at Transcona or not, but if the Transcona. shops had been built somewhere near the centre they would have taken care of a haul of 1,800 miles and. would have served a better purpose. There is no question about that, because the shops are large enough in every respect. We have as many miles of road on the Intercolonial, and we have not as good shops at. the different divisional points as there are on the Transcontinental railway, which, I may say, are exceptionally good on every division, so that, even if they did not have the shops at Quebec, they could get along far better than they could on their own line from Winnipeg west. I know that the equipment at each of the divisional points of the National Transcontinental is far superior to the equipment of the shops on the other divisions, because I have been over a good portion of that road and went through the shops and saw for myself.
I must take issue with my hon. friend when he says that the chief engineer for the National Transcontinental Railway Commission and the chief engineer for tne Grand Trunk Pacific can settle the dispute as to whether the road is completed 'or not, by [DOT] calling in a third arbitrator. I do not think he has any ground for interpreting the Act in that way. On the question of construction, the engineers can follow that procedure, but as to the completion of the road, there is.no definition in the Act as to what-" completion " is. The point I want to make there is that if the chief engineer for the company continued to hold out and to say that this road is not completed, he could find excuses until the end of time, and he would never admit that the road was-completed.


George Perry Graham: The third arbitrator would not side with him.


Francis Cochrane: Perhaps not, but at all
events the procedure referred to by my hon. friend is as to construction, and it has no reference to completion, and there is a big difference between the two. If there is a

[DOT]dispute between the two engineers as to how a piece of road or a bridge is to be constructed, an arbitrator may be called in, but the completion is a different question altogether. On the piece of road from Graham to Lake Superior Junction, which my hon. friend took over from the Grand Trunk Pacific, there are quite a number of wooden trestles, which we have not filled, and when their usefulness is ended it will be up to us to fill them in or to put in steel and concrete.


George Perry Graham: That is the two miles of road?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, but again on McArthur's work there are wooden trestles. These are things that must continue for some time, and under the Act, as I understand it, there will be capital charges year after year, so that the House
5 p.m. will be continually voting certain sums for capital charges to improve and extend the Transcontinental. I do not think there is any doubt about that. We might, of course, never get the chief engineer of the Company to say that the road was completed, and so they could carry this contention on forever.
My hon. friend said that we were going about this in the wrong way, but I can assure him that there is no desire on the part of the department or of the Govern-'ment to go about it in the wrong way. We feel that the road is in shape for operation now. We feel that, even with these, other works that are not completed, they have absolute facilities for operating the road to accommodate all the business there will be for years to come. I think it is only fair and just that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company should enter into this agreement and carry out their part of the bargain.
I understood that another submission which they have made is, that they will enter into an agreement to operate a road costing $60,000,000, and they say they do not want to enter into an agreement for a road that has cost $180,000,000, or whatever it may be. That, of course, is a big difference.


George Perry Graham: That is not in the correspondence.


Francis Cochrane: It is not, but I understand that it is one of the contentions they set up, and probably it will be stated when they answer my letter, but perhaps I should not have mentioned it here.


William Pugsley: Does this sum of
$169,061,354.80 include compound interest over the whole period?


Arthur Meighen: It is the interest as provided for by section 20 of the Act.


William Pugsley: That is compound interest capitalized to the end of the year during' which the expenditure was made, and then simple interest from that on?


Arthur Meighen: I believe so.
Mr. PUGSLEY': I am inclined to think, judging by the figures, that it is compound interest right straight through, which, if it is so, is contrary to the agreement.


Francis Cochrane: I will find out about that.


Arthur Meighen: It is simple interest.


William Pugsley: It should be simple interest.


Arthur Meighen: It is.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood the Minister of Railways to say that the reason he brings this resolution before the House, is that the road is now completed and ready to be operated, and that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are declining to live up to their agreement and refuse to take the road and operate it.


Francis Cochrane: They have not refused yet. This legislation only provides for the contingency of their refusal. If I did not make that clear, I want to make it clear now.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood from the minister that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, while not actual ly refusing to operate the road, did, not comply with the request made by the Minister of Railways to operate the road. I can very well understand that the Grand Trunk Railway Company are not anxious to operate the road, after the road has been deteriorated and blemished as it has been. A railroad is not complete when the roadbed has been prepared and the rails laid; it must have terminals at each end. As soon as this Government came to office, the question was raised whether or not the terminals of the road were part of the construction, and the question being referred to arbitration, the award went against the contention of the Government.


Francis Cochrane: Do you refer to the award of Sir William Whyte?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. The
award of Sir William Whyte settled the principle that the terminals are part of the construction, and, therefore, there must/be

terminals at Winnipeg, as there are, and also terminals at Quebec, which the Government is now providing. The minister is aware that there has been a total change made in the terminals as proposed at Quebec. The other day the Minister of Railways stated that his object was to administer his department in a businesslike manner and in no other way; that his only consideration was the interest of the country, and that he would not allow politics to enter into his administration. I give full credit to my hon. friend that when he made that statement he meant it; but if it be his object, as I believe he intended it to be, that in the administra-tration of the important department he has in charge he has nothing in view but the interest of the country, the interest of the railway, and the interest of his department, how can he contend that the changes which he made in the terminals at Quebec w'ere in the interest of the country or of the railway?


Francis Cochrane: I have no hesitation in saying that I think they were. [DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend thinks so, and I cannot put my judgment against his, because I do not pretend to be a railway man; but everybody whom I have heard discuss the question has declared that the changes made at Quebec were detrimental to the railroad and to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway which was obliged to operate that road under that agreement.
As to the shops, when the late commission had charge of that road, they bought 300 acres of land for the purpose of erecting shops. Where should the shops of a railway be built? Is it not common sense that they should be built by the side and upon the level of the railway? The site for the shops provided by the ilate commission was at Cap Rouge, by the side of the railway and near the bridge. My hon. friend tells me now that that site has been discarded altogether, and that the shops are to be located nine miles away from the Tailway; yet my hon. friend will say that it is in the interest of the road and of the country that that should be done. Although my -hon. friend says that, from his experience and on his responsibility as an adviser of the Crown and as a trustee of the people, to remove the shops from Cap Rouge, where they were just on the level of the roadway, by the roadside, and to place them nine miles away, is in the 
interest of the country, every one will say that it is contrary to common sense. There is no possible excuse for changing the site. My hon. friend has been at Cap Rouge, and he knows that what I am stating now is absolutely true. At Cap Rouge there are 300 acres of good ground on a rock foundation. At St. Malo there is a swamp, and the site is nine miles away from the road. It is not possible to use the shops at St. Malo unless every car which is sent from the railway to the shops passes over a line of something over nine miles. My hon. friend, in order to reach the shops, has had to buy from the Canadian Northern at a cost of $175,000, an old line, which was built in an inferior manner and which will have to be improved very much in order to bring it up to the standard of the rest of the road. That expenditure would have been saved to the country if the old site had been retained. From the date of the changing of the site to this, I have not heard a single explanation from the minister-and I shall be glad to hear one from him in a moment or two-as to how he can justify his action in changing the site of the shops from Cap Rouge to St. Malo. The shops at St. Malo will be at least 150 feet lower than the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific where the former site was. The distance between the site at St. Malo and the railway is so great that when the late Postmaster General, the Hon. Mr. Pelletier, announced it to the people of Quebec, he said that in order to reach the shops a tunnel would be built from the line of railway to the shops. For the benefit of those who do not know Quebec as the minister and I know it, I may say that the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway is in the valley of the St. Lawrence, and that the shops are not in the valley of the St. Lawrence, but in the valley of the St. Charles river. Between the valley of the St. Lawrence river and the valley of the St. Charles river rises Cape Diamond which will have to be tunnelled in order to extend the railway to the shops and to bring the shops within reasonable 'distance of the main line. My hon. friend says that the site was changed in the interest of the country. I will not dispute that; I will leave the matter to the country to decide. The minister has riot brought down a scrap of paper, from the time that he so acted up to this moment, to show that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has ever agreed to the change. That company, so far as I have been able to find out from all the papers brought down by my

hon. friend, has never consented to that change. My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) a moment ago quoted the law that the specifications had to be agreed upon by the engineer of the company and by the engineer of the Government jointly. It was agreed that the shops were to be placed at Cap Rouge beside the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. Therefore the change could not be made legally, and to-day the Government is at the mercy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. To-day that company says: This road will not be completed until the contract which we made and the specifications upon which we agreed have been carried out to the letter. My hon. friend, when he acted as he did, may say that he acted with a view to helping the country and the company; but when he did so, whatever may have been his motive, he placed himself in the power of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and he cannot compel them to execute the lease.
There is another point. A railway must have a station. This railway, in order to meet the object for which it wa.= intended, must be brought down to the tidal waters of the St. Lawrence at Quebec, and it is so brought down. Then there must be a station. Every one will admit that. When the question of determining where the station should be came before the late commission, they	consulted all	theparties interested;	they consulted	allthe railway companies and all the steamship companies which come to the city of Quebec; they consulted the Quebec Central Company, the Intercolonial Railway, the Delaware & Hudson Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Railway Company and even the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. On a former occasion I quoted the deliberations of all the interested parties.	They consulted	theAllan line, the Donaldson line, the White Star line and all the other steamship companies which come	to Quebec. The	decision was then made that the best site on which to place a station was the Champlain market. They proceeded accordingly. They bought from the city of Quebec the Champlain market for $100,000. They started to prepare plans for the station, and they gave a contract for it. When the present Government came into power, they cancelled that contract. The indemnity given to the contractors for the cancelling of the contract for the building of the station at
the Champlain market amounted to some $36,000.


Francis Cochrane: I think it was'$26,000. I am not sure.	-


Wilfrid Laurier: Why did they cancel the contract? Why did they not build the station -where it was intended to be placed? They said that they wanted to have a union station for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Rail-way Company. My hon. friend knows that, between the point of junction of the railway and the tidal waters and the Canadian Pacific railway station, there is a distance of fully three-quarters of a mile, and that again Cape Diamond must be tunnelled in order to reach the station of the Canadian Pacific railway, or the line must go through the busiest part of the city of Quebec. My hon. friend knows-if he does not everybody in the city of Quebec must be of the opinion-that this station is not half so useful for the purpose of the enterprise as the station that was discarded. Moreover, though he cancelled that contract and changed that station, he was compelled to admit later on that he had made a mistake; for last year he had to come back and ask this Parliament for an appropriation for the building of a station at the very spot which he had discarded three years before. Is this in the interest * of the country? And who can say that in so acting my hon. friend has acted in, the best interest of the road? Will it be said that it -was on the question of cost that he so acted? Let us look at that. The land at the market station cost $100,000. The station was to cost $1,000,000-making the total cost of station and site $1,100,000. What will be the cost to the country under the contract which my hon. friend has made wih the Canadian Pacific Railway Company? The papers brought down to-day show that for the Canadian Pacific railway property as it exists to-day a capital charge is admitted of $3,295,000. The expense for the new station will be $2,000,000, and land yet to be acquired will cost $1,075,000. This makes a total cost of $6,370,000, on which the country will have to pay 21 per cent, or $142,000 a year. So, it cannot be said that it is for reasons of economy that this change was made. Moreover the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that this new Canadian Pacific railway station is of no use whatever to the Grand Trunk Pacific unless a tun.

nel is provided to go under Cape Diamond from the valley of the St. Charles to the valley of the St. Lawrence. I repeat, these changes of the station were made without the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. If I am wrong, I am ready to be corrected, but certainly there is not a syllable in the papers brought down by the Government to show that I am wrong. I assume, unless I am contradicted, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company never agreed to the changes made.
Well, Sir, when these changes have been made by the Government regardless of the contract entered into with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, it is not extraordinary that the company do not rush forward to take over the road. Their agreement was based upon certain terms; and the Government ruthlessly and without the consent of the company threw aside the agreement made. Now they tell us that the road is completed to their own satisfaction and therefore the company should take it over. It is no wonder that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company declares that it is not prepared to take over the road.
The hon. gentleman stated a moment ago that he understood the Grand Trunk Pacific will not take over the road, but contend that it is not completed because the bridge is not completed. If that is the objection raised by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, I have only to say that nothing of that kind appears in the correspondence. There is not a word of it. He said also that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company refused to take over the road because they thought the cost too heavy. If that is their pretension

and I do not think it is-there is not a word in the correspondence brought down to show it. I know there is one thing in the correspondence that has been brought down, and that is the protest of the company against the degrading of the road.


Arthur Meighen: In what letter is that
found?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not say that that is in the correspondence brought down to-day; that was in the correspondence to which attent'on was called a year or more ago.
So I repeat what I have said: the Government have put themselves in the power of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and cannot compel that company to take over the road. Let them go before any

court to compel the carrying out of this part of th<j contract, and the company will say: You have not lived up to your agreement; the road is not completed, and we will not take it.	*
These are preliminary remarks to the con

sideration of the merits of the resolution brought forward to-day by my hon. friend. We shall have to deal with that later on. With regard to the observation made by the Solicitor General that the contract was deficient, I have to say that the contract is full and complete, made by the best lawyers we could engage. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick was Minister of Justice when the contract was prepared. Not satisfied with his own efforts, he called in Mr. Gormully, solicitor of the Bank of Montreal, and Mr. Shepley, of whose reputation I need not speak. These were the parties who prepared the contract. There is enough in the contract, as I stated a moment ago, to force the implementing by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of their undertaking. But the Government have placed themselves in such a position that they cannot force the company to act.


Francis Cochrane: I take issue with my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a3 to what was laid before the late Sir William Whyte, the arbitrator. As I understand it- and I wafs there when the agreement was drawn up and read-the Grand Trunk Pacific wanted to use not only the Transcona shops but also the road down to join with their road at Lake Superior; and it was to find out what they should pay for the use of the shops separately and what they were to pay for the use of the railway. He made his award on that and we have carried it out.


George Perry Graham: That is not a complete award.


Francis Cochrane: It is a complete award so far as my memory carries. I have not it here. They were to pay 2 per cent on the cost of the road down to Lake Superior, 10 per cent orr all work done for the use of their rolling stock from Winnipeg to Lake Superior, and 12J per cent on any rolling stock repaired at these shops of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
Now, with reference to the St. Malo shops and the changing of the site. I am confident that the country believes that the change was good not only in the interest of the road but in the interest of the city of Quebec. The shops are five miles outside the terminal in Quebec of the Transcontin-

ental road. He says they are nine miles outside.


George Perry Graham: You run right by them with your road.


Francis Cochrane: We run right by them into the city of Quebec, to the Canadian Pacific Railway station.


George Perry Graham: That is not the same line, that is away from the bridge.


Francis Cochrane: That may be.


Wilfrid Laurier: Away from the bridge and away from the river also.


Francis Cochrane: Yes. We have 200 acres there which was bought at as low a price as the other.


Wilfrid Laurier: Pardon me.


Francis Cochrane: Well, I think in proportion a great deal cheaper.


Wilfrid Laurier: Pardon me.


Francis Cochrane: The other was bought at $300 an acre, and this at $1,000 an acre.


Wilfrid Laurier: The land at Cap Rouge was $300 an acre and the land at St. Male $1,000 an acre.


Francis Cochrane: $200,000; yes, and a good bargain at that.


Wilfrid Laurier: I hope so.


George Perry Graham: For the fellows that sold it.


William Pugsley: Was the change to St. Malo approved of by the company?


Francis Cochrane: I am not so sure of that, and that is why I did not answer the right hon. gentleman.


William Pugsley: The minister will find that out?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. I have nothing to hide in this matter.


William Pugsley: I do not suggest that you have.


Francis Cochrane: I want to take issue with the right Ihon. gentleman in reference to the Champlain market. I do not think there is a business man in Quebec who will not agree that the change is in the interest of the city of Quebec, when you consider that you have to go to the Champlain market over those little narrow streets, one with a street railway on it, and not large enough for the existing traffic, and haul 115
your train around by way of the Canadian
Pacific railway station. That would certainly not be in the interest of Quebec in any shape or form. There is no room there to .have a proper terminal. I think it is in the interest of the country that there should be union stations wherever possible. This may cost a little more, but the terminals aTe far better. I had a good example to follow, that of the old Commission in making joint terminals in the city of Winnipeg. The Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific there use the one terminal, and the interest charges in Winnipeg will be nearly as high as in the city of Quebec. In reference to the tunnel, is it in the interest of the Transcontinental or of Quebec, or of the country, that we should build a tunnel which would cost probably a million, or a million and a quarter, or a million and a half of dollars, and have the 'company pay interest on it before the business there calls for it? I make the statement again that the Transcontinental railway, if they started running to-morrow, could run right down to" the Canadian Pacific Railway station, use that station in connection with the other line and go right down to the Louise basin and make their terminals there.
The hon. gentleman said that the Canadian Pacific railway agreed that the Champlain market was the best place for a station. A very eminent railway man, Mr. McNicol, told me it was not a fit place for it, and he was at that conference.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER- I agree that he is a good man to the Canadian Pacific railway.


Francis Cochrane: If I understood my right hon. friend, and I do not want to misquote him, he said that the Canadian Pacific railway had agreed that it was the best place.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not say
that. I said all the companies. The Canadian Pacific railway was at the meeting. I did not say that the Canadian Pacific railway agreed, but all the others certainly did agree.


Francis Cochrane: He is certainly a good railway man.


Wilfrid Laurier: From the
Canadian Pacific railway standpoint, no better, and he showed it in the contract he made with my hon. friend.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think so, and I am willing to stand by that, not

38:8

withstanding my right hon. friend. We have heard a good deal about degrading the road. I have no less an authority than Mr. Chamberlin for the assertion that we took the Tight position in that,, and surely he is interested-he is president of this road.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Francis Cochrane: And he said that we could take out the grades, if it was thought in the interest of the road, for one-half what the old commission was paying.


Charles Marcil: Who recommended these changes in Quebec ?


Francis Cochrane: The commission.


Charles Marcil: Did a board of railway engineers recommend them or how were they brought about ?


Francis Cochrane: They were brought about by the commission, just as they were brought about in the first place.


Arthur Lachance: Mr. Chairman, the resolution before the House gives authority to the Government to lease or otherwise acquire that part of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway known as Lake Superior Division, between Lake Superior Junction and Fort William, in Ontario, the power to be exercised in case the company refuse to operate the Transcontinental. The contract made in 1903 between the late Government and the company provides that the company has to take over the railway only after its completion. Now, the road is not yet completed according to the terms of the contract, and that is one of the reasons given in the correspondence brought down before the House by the Minister of Railways why the company is withholding its signature to the lease recently submitted to it by .the Government. Among other incomplete works on the road, the company mentions the whole of the work on the terminals in Quebec city and harbour. I wish to make a few remarks on this last point. I regret to say that the company seems to have taken a correct stand. Not only the terminals 'are not completed, but I should even ibe justified in stating that they are barely started. As a matter of fact, from the information given the House during this session, we find that during the year, as well as during the past three years, no progress has been made in the construction of these terminals in Quebec city and harbour, and that-the only activity manifested by the Government since it is in power has tended to destroy rather than build.

I'ts indifference and apathy can neither be explained nor condoned.
A few words on the conditions that existed in 1911. The railway had been built up to the city; the foundations had been started for a station at Champlain market to cost $1,000,000. Many millions of dollars had been voted to construct deep water wharves 1,800 feet in length in the region of Cape Diamond, the terre-plein that would foe left to be used for yards, sidings, freight-shed and elevator sites. The interested parties, the city of Quebec, the Transcontinental Railway Commission, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the Government, had acted jointly to devise this whole scheme that was to take two years to complete, after which time the Transcontinental would itself be ready to operate its trains from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But as 'soon as the Borden Government came into power, it upset all these arrangements which were both advantageous and logical. They stopped the work between Quebec and Cup Rouge, and in the meantime there has been nothing doing in that region; between Cochrane and Quebec as well everything moves at a snail's pace. For constructing 35 miles of grading and 88 miles of track, which remained to be done in that section in November, 1912, and which required at most a few months, a whole year was spent, the road having been completed only in November, 1913. That premeditated delay was doubtless intended to facilitate the cogitations of the new president of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, Major Leonard, on the problems of slopes and curves; but we realize how as a result of those cogitations the traction power from Cochrane to Quebec and even to Moncton, was impaired. At the beginning of the undertaking in 1905, the engineers had determined the grades over the whole line from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as follows: stapes runnings east, four-tenths of one per cent or 21 feet per mile; slopes running west, five-tenths of one per cent or 26 feet per mile, then later six-tenths of one per cent or 31 feet per mile. It must, however, be stated that slopes were to be avoided except where it would be impossible to obtain an absolute level. By means of these very gradual slopes, a locomotive could pull double the weight that it could draw on any other road now in operation in this country. Now, between Cochrane and Quebec, Mr. Leonard has increased the slopes from 21 feet to 100 feet per mile of road; with the necessary result that a locomotive, having pulled as long a train as its power would allow from Prince Rupert to Cochrane.

*would not (be able to proceed to Quebec without dividing the train into two sections. The objectionable character of such a condition of things need not be pointed out. The efficiency of the road' was impaired without any justification.
But as regards Quebec itself and the con-struetdon of the terminals, I claim that since October, 1911, the Government's action has been ineffective, and at times even destructive. What about the shops that were to be put up at Cap Rouge for the *building and repair of cars? The Government is building them at St. Malo, with only half the capacity first decided on, -and only for repairs. The Quebec Board of Trade has entered a protest against these changes in its report for 1914. At page 124 may be found a letter from its president, Mr.. Joseph Picard, dated the 5th of December, 1914, to Hon. Thomas Chase Casgrain, the new Postmaster General, which reads partly thus:-
The construction of. the Transcontinental Railway car shops at St. Malo, is progressing satisfactorily; but those car works have no shops for the construction of cars, as were to have the carworks which had been planned at' first for Cap Rouge. We were given the assurance that this omission would be rectified, because Mr. Chamberlin has stated that the Transcontinental will require for car construction as extensive facilities as any other transcontinental system.
We ourselves have also during last session entered protests, but in vain, and you will find that the board1 -of trade's representations will likewise have no practical results.
Then, to connect these carworks with, the railway, the Government had to purchase from the Great Northern Railway five miles of line at -a cost of $175,000 to w-hi-ch three *jniles had to be added at a cost of ten to twelve thousand dollars. And -all that expenditure was made when -it -would have been so simple and logical to build them at Cap Rouge where they would have been in cloiS-e, touch with th-e m-ain road and where must pass all the rolling material of the Transcontinental from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
As to the terminals themselves, namely the stations, yards, freight sheds, elevators, they were to be located in- the vicinity of Champlain market and Cape Diamond. Thus located close to the deep water wharves, they would have been part of the Transcontinental system and intended first of 'all for its own -service and under its direct contr-ol. Now -the Government want them built in the valley -of the river St. Charles, on the property of the Canadian 115J
Pacific Railway Company, where, in all likelihood, they will be of service to 'and under the control of that company especially. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had -agreed' to the first plans; and now refuses to accept the others because, if those plans were carried' out, the company would -be dependent on the Canadian Pacific Rail-way. Notwithstanding these objections, the Government persists in its new proposals; 'but the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is a necessary condition under the contract made in 1903 between it and the late government. However it may be, the. consent or refusal of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to the proposed changes do not in any way justify the Government's apathy for more than three years.
Yet, since October 1911, the citizens of the city of Quebec, particularly through their board of trade, have constantly urged the construction of those terminals; their solicitations were never more pressing and frequent than during 1914, hut were 'always fruitless. Thus- at page 69 of the annual report, I find the following to have taken place at a meeting of the board of directors held on the 2nd of June:
His Honour Mayor Drouin, being invited to report on his recent interview with the members or the Government at Ottawa respecting the work on the Transcontinental, complied willingly. The board was not satisfied with the explanations given by the members of the Dominion Government concerning the delay in the construction of the terminals of the Transcontinental at Quebec, particularly of the freight sheds or stations. It was then decided to send a deputation to Ottawa, and a telegram was sent immediately to the representative of the Quebec district in the Dominion cabinet, Hon.
L. P. Pelletier, asking him to name a day and hour for an interview with the deputation.
As I turn over tbe leaves, I find ia minute at page 70 which is an answer to the statement of the minister of Railw-ays that the terminal facilities of th-e Canadian Pacific * Railway at Quebec were -sufficient for the traffic on the Transcontinental. H-ere is the note:
On the 9th of June, the board sent to the Hon. I,. P. Pelletier a letter informing him that .the elevator built on the Louise jetty by the Harbour Commissioners will scarcely be of any use for the local trade, because besides the sum of $2 per car charged by the Harbour Commission for the use of the sidings on the Louise jetty, the Canadian Pacific Railway charges the excessive rate of 2J cents per hundred pounds for the use by the same cars of its own sidings, or rather for the use a few hundred feet in length, that is $15 for every car of 40,000 pounds capacity; there is moreover $1 per car to be paid at the elevator for the loading of each car, which means the excessive total charge of $18 per car.
1S20

And that is the elevator which we are asked to believe would according to the new government scheme satisfy for the requirements of the traffic on the Transcontinental, when this very elevator, under its present management and on account of the railways interested in it, can hardly handle the local trade.
To further show the groundlessness of the statement made by the Minister of Kail-ways regarding Quebec's ability .to cope with the handling of the freight at that place, I again quote from the report, at page 75, of a meeting of the board of directors held on the 12th of June, 1914:
Mr. Jean Guay points out the delay in the construction at Quebec of the terminals for the Transcontinental Railway. By means of small topographical charts which he distributes among the directors, he shows that there is no general plan of the whole works, that no provision has been made either by means of a tunnel or otherwise for connecting the car works at St. Malo with the Transcontinental Railway; that the new grain elevator of the Harbour Commission could hardly he utilized by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. He adds that a representative delegation should go to Ottawa and interview the Government on this subject, so that precise information may be obtained that could then be communicated to the members of the Board of Trade at a special general meeting that could be held in ten days or so.
The Chairman points out that it is hardly possible to obtain in just- a few days precise information and that it would he better to adjourn sine die or else.call that meeting whenever it will be necessary.
So, here we are in June, 1914, after three years during /which the Government have had* under consideration this question of terminals, yet the president of the Board of Trade has yet been unable to obtain precise information. Besides, even we members of this House have never been able to get anything definite in the way of information.
About that time, the Government seems to have been somewhat inclined' to revert to the original scheme of elevators and deep water docks at Cape Diamond. Thus, at page 91 of the report, there may the seen a latter, dated the 2nd of July, 1914, written by the president to Hon. L. P. Pelletier, then Poistmaster General:
Dear Sir,
I have communicated to the council of the Board of Trade the result of our recent visit to the terminals which are to be constructed at Quebec for the handling of the freight on the Transcontinental and also your decision to press the construction of the docks and of an elevator at Lampson's cove.
The directors wish me to convey to you their thanks and congratulations for this decision and their hope that these works will be pushed rapidly to completion so that Quebec may be able to handle the grain from the Northwest

as soon as the Transcontinental begins to remove it to the sea.
*****
We are informed that the contractor intends to construct the 2,000 feet docks which you have authorized, from Lampson's cove in a westerly direction, in the shape of a simple wharf or protecting wall, fronting on the river in a straight line. A wharf of that kind would accommodate only three large vessels and it would become necessary to construct very wide and expensive galleries leading from the elevators ; while if docks were constructed on the same plan as those of Halifax, St. John, Morn treat and New York, there would be five times times the accommodation for an equal frontage.
On the 11th of August, the president writes another letter giving particulars about the docks at Halifax.
But that scheme of docks >and elevators is entering a new phase. I have here two *letters explaining the reasons of its failure:
Ottawa, August 15, 1914.
Mr. Jos. Picard,
President of the Board of Trade,
Quebec.
Dear Sir:
In further reference to your letter of the 11th inst., I beg to forward you a copy of the reply received by me from Hon. Mr. Cochrane, relating to the docks intended to afford terminal facilities for the handling of freight on the Transcontinental at Quebec.
Yours very sincerely,	.
(Signed) Louis P. Pelletier.
Ottawa, August 14, 1914.
Hon. L. P. Pelletier,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Pelletier:
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 13th inst. with enclosed a copy of a letter from Mr. Jos. Picard, president of the Quebec Board of Trade, and in reply to state that the harbour at Halifax is under the control of the Intercolonial Railway, and so under the direct control of my department, while the harbour at Quebec is under the control of the Harbour Commissioners, with whom I have nothing to do.
Yours very sincerely,
(Signed) P. Cochrane.
The stand thus taken by the Minister of Railways seems to me unwarranted. He slates: I am concerned with the docks in Halifax baribour, because that harbour is under the management of the Intercolonial the latter being under the control of my department. But the Transcontinental is also under the control of his department, because, for the last two years, the minister has taken over the powers of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. The original plans also provided for the construction of those docks by the Transcontinental Railway Commission. Moreover the Government 'has constructed the docks at Levis and never claimed that it was for the Quebec harbour commission to see to that work.

The answer of the minister therefore merely evades the question, and1 justifies our suspicions that the Government is ill-disposed towards the Quebec terminals.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Lachance: Mr. Chairman, just before six o'clock, when you left the chair, I was replying to the claim of the Minister of Railways that the Transcontinental Railway was now ready to start operations, even at Quebec, and that there were in that city sufficient facilities to meet the requirements of both the passenger and freight traffics. I have already quoted from correspondence between the ministers and the city authorities, to prove that such a claim is without foundation; that there are at present at Quebec neither docks, nor elevators that could be made use of by the Transcontinental Railway and that the Minister of Railways has refused to carry on these works but has suggested that it was for the Harbour Commission to see to
them.	.
As a matit-er of fact, the Board of Iradc appealed to the Harbour commission. Alas, a new deception awaited them, as will be seen 'by the two following letters, one from Mr. Levasseur, secretary of the Board of Trade, to Mr. Renault, the other from Mr. Renault to Mr. Levasseur:
Quebec, September 21, 1914.
Mr. Raoul Renault,
Secretary-Treasurer of the
Harbour Commission.
Dear Sir:
On the lltli of August last, we sent to Hon. Mr. Pelletier, the representative of the Quebec district in the Dominion Government, the enclosed letter. X have instructions from the board of directors to communicate to you a copy of this letter, as well as the answers of the Hon. Mr. Pelletier and of the Minister of Railways and Canals.
You will notice that the Minister of Railways and Canals suggests that the works at Lamp-son's cove, etc., for the Transcontinental Railway terminals are under the direct control of the Quebec Harbour Commission.
M. T. LeVasseur,
Secretary.
Quebec, September 26, 1914.
M. T. LeVasseur, Esq.,
Secretary,
Board of Trade,
Quebec.
I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of the 21st inst. enclosing a letter to Hon. L. P. Pelletier regarding the work which the Harbour Commissioners are now carrying on at Lamp-son's cove.
In reply, I have instructions to inform you that the improvements now being effected at
Lampson's cove are destined only to provide a landing for the railway ferry-boat.
Yours very sincerely,
Raoul Renault,
Secretary,
Quebec Harbour Commission.
So a peculiar situation arises; nobody is willing to take charge of the most indispensable part of the terminals, namely the docks and elevators. The Government do not concern themselves about it; the Harbour Commission will not have anything to do with it, neither will the Minister of Railways.
It would be difficult to find in the past, under any of the administrations, a similar chaos in an undertaking of -such importance: no controlling head, no acting body, no definite plan, no responsible authority over the actions of the parties interested; one pulls this way, another that way, to suit personal or political interests.
And what about the famous Union station at the Palace? To reach it a tunnel had been proposed; has the work been started? The hon. member for 'South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has asked the following question:
1.	Has the work been started on the proposed tunnel in connection with the maritime station of the National Transcontinental at Quebec?
2.	If so, what amount has been expended on the work up to December 31, 1914?
The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals answered -as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	$372,514.86 have been expended by the land commissioners and $154,293.83 by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the right of way and buildings.
What relation the purchase of that land and the construction of those roads and buildings can have to the tunnelling of the cliff from Sillery to St. Malo, is not easy to isee. Then, what generosity has prompted the idea of connecting with the construction of that tunnel the Canadian Pacific Railway? But what can be clearly seen is that the tunnel is not under way, that many .years will pass and many millions will be spent before it is completed, if ever the scheme should .materialize; and meanwhile the Transcontinental will be without approaches to the station which is planned for it and without any accommodation for the handling of its freight.	_
To be just, I must ,say that last spring, the Government started work on the foundations of a freight station at Champlain market; but these foundations were barely out of the ground when the work was stopped about the end of July.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: Will the hon. member allow me a question? Does

my h-on. friend state that the work on the Champlain station was interrupted dm July?


Arthur Lachance: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Not at
all. It was carried on until the snow flew.


Arthur Lachance: I beg the Postmaster General's pardon. I am sure of what I say because in the month of October, I happened to go several times in that locality and the work had been stopped. Resides I lately read in a Quebec paper, iLe Soieil or L'Evenemmt, but I rather think it was in Le Solerl although I am not positive about- it, that the work was stopped .since the beginning of August.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, no.


Arthur Lachance: In any case, one thing is certain, and that is that the work has been stopped, for what reason I do not know, long before the snow flew. In any event, winter came; but that was no reason to interrupt the work.
So then, wretched car-works reduced to one-half their capacity at Saint Malo, and the foundation of -an insignificant freight station ait Champlain market, such were the only results of three years efforts on the part of the Government towards the building of the Transcontinental railway terminals at Quebec, and are what the Minister of Railways wishes us to accept as sufficient accommodation for the traffic on the Grand Trunk Pacific.
Such was the hopeless and confused tangle in which were the terminals when the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) made his exit last fall.
Then a new political star rose on the horizon, .and we saluted it with pleasure.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Translation):: With enthusiasm.
The Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER . (Translation): We shall judge him by his works.


Arthur Lachance: 
Arthur Meighen: I regret I cannot reply to the hon. gentleman in his own language, and I still further regret that I was only able to ascertain very imperfectly the purport of his remarks. Consequently, what I have to say will not, I hope, be considered by him as the whole answer of the Government to whatever he may have charged. I understand, however, that the burden of his remarks has been that the Quebec terminals and other facilities in the city of Quebec and its neighbourhood are not sufficiently completed to warrant the Government calling upon the company to make good their contract and take over the road. I believe he also seconds the assertion of his leader that an error has been made in the choice of the site for the terminals and the Leonard shops. In the first place, I am not able to get the connection between the burden of his remarks and the motion that is
before the Chair. The motion before the Chair is that a' resolution be passed, concluding that it is in the interests of the country to put the Government in a position to lease the line between Lake Superior Junction and Fort William, or, if necessary, acquire it in another way than by leasing it, and to make whatever may he necessary in the way of expenditure to operate the Transcontinental railway, that line included, a charge against consolidated revenue. Even were all that the hon. gentleman says correct, and all that the right hon. leader of the Opposition says correct, would it not be wise to pass this resolution? Would it not be even more necessary, if such were possible, than it is on the assumption that they are wrong? The resolution simply empowers the Government to lease, should it deem wise, the 'line between Lake Superior Junction and Fort William, on the assumption that it may for some time be the duty of the Government to operate this road, and that that line will be necessary. If the remarks of the speaker who has just sat down (Mr. Lachance) were correct, if it were true that the portion of the work at Quebec was so far from completion as he says, it would be all the more likely that we should have to operate the line, and operate it for some time, and necessary that we should operate the line between Superior Junction and Fort William.
Were the remarks of the hon. gentlemen opposite confined to the resolution, it appears to me they would be reduced to the one or two preliminary sentences of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) in which he found cause for complaint in the resolution by reason of the fact that it enabled us to " otherwise acquire " the line. It is not necessary to remind the House that enabling the Government to " otherwise acquire " is not in any sense a direction on the part of the House that anything should be otherwise acquired. The circumstances surrounding the whole transaction, and the circumstances in which we are placed to-day as a result of years of legislation and as a result of the position the work is now in, may make it necessary for us to operate the line, and those circumstances are such that it would appear to a reasonable man that our proper course in the meantime was, if possible, to lease the line between Superior Junction and Fort William. The resolution empowers us to lease it. But would hon. gentlemen opposite contend that with our negotiations with the Grand Trunk

Pacific, who are the owners of that line, we should have no alternative whatever, and that there should be no weapon in our hands that would enable us to see that a lease only on reasonable terms was entered into? Unless we have as an alternative the power to expropriate, unless, indeed, we have all the alternatives that we may be empowered to have, we may be hampered in our negotiations with the company and the company would have the advantage of us in those negotiations. It is the desire of the Government that they should have no advantage, and that we should be equipped with as many weapons as Parliament may equip us with, in order that we may enter into such an engagement with the Grand Trunk Pacific as will be fair and reasonable and of advantage to the Dominion of Canada. That is the only reason I know of -why the words " or otherwise acquire " are inserted in the resolution.
I remarked a moment ago that, assuming that the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite had something in them, and that we were not in a position at present to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to make good its engagement and lease the line, they offer no obstacle to the resolution, they offer no argument against it. If those arguments have any effect, they .would make the resolution all the more necessary, and if hon. gentlemen opposite appreciate and believe in their own arguments they will be all the more enthusiastically behind the resolution. For myself, I am not behind the resolution for these reasons. The ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) argued very strenuously this afternoon that the time had not come when we could ask the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to lease this line. I do not know what the object of his argument was. I do not know why it should be his desire or the desire of any hon. gentleman opposite to argue in the House of Commons against the interests of the country in this regard. This is a question of fact. It is a question whether or not the condition of the road required by the terms of the agreement is such that we can ask the company to take the road over. That is a question of fact that must be left for the decision of such tribunal as we may have recourse to. The hon. member for South Renfrew argued-I do not know whether he intended to argue it or not, but I drew that inference from his remarks- that the proper tribunal was an arbitration tribunal under clause 7 of the contract. I do not take that view myself. I do not

think my hon. friend took that view when he was Minister of Railways. I do not think his Government took that view of the effect of clause 7. But this Government has retained the engineer in charge who was placed there by the late Government-an engineer in whom they had confidence and in whom, so far as I know, we have no reason not to have confidence ourselves- and on a question of fact, which is a question of engineering, is it not the duty of this Government to take the statement and the certificate of their engineer. The hon. gentleman read some letters, and he repeated his inference from those letters that the road was not complete. We do hot contend, we have not argued, we have not asserted that everything associated with that road is complete. That is the fault I find with the agreement. That is the fault I find with the policy of the Government ip entering into the engagement they did in 1903. They seemed to contemplate the building of a railway as they would contemplate the building of a suit of clothes. They seemed to contemplate that there was a definite time at which it would commence, and an equally definite time at which all would be completed. They did not take the advice of railway men surely in a matter of this kind. I do not know of any railway in the world and I never heard of any railway in the world that was at any stage of its existence complete. And in their contract the Government did not provide any method at all by which that state of completion is to be determined, or any tribunal to which the question of its completion can be referred.
Consequently, the only tribunals I know of are the courts of the land. While there are works, such as the Quebec terminals, the approaches to the bridge, the Leonard shops and the Quebec bridge itself which are still in process, they will ultimately form a part of the line. These must be in process for years. Is it the fault of this Government that they are in process and not completed? Do hon. gentlemen opposite take the ground that they believed when they were entering into this engagement that we would have the line ready for operation and not be in a position to call on anybody to operate the road? If we assume thjit I am afraid we must come to the conclusion that they were not looking after the interests of the country when they entered into that agree-men. Then again, did they believe, when they signed the contract in T903, that we

should be in this position, that the road would be ready for operation, but that because certain parts fif the works, that ultimately would form part of it and would be operated in connection with it, were not completed at the time, the road should lie idle and we should not be in a position to call upon anybody to operate? Was that their intention? It must have been their intention if their argument to-day is correct.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, when they" made that agreement, must have assumed that the traffic that the line would have to carry the first day it was run would be just the same as it would be four years after it had commenced to run. If not, then they must have had in contemplation just what took place,' namely, that certain works would be under way prior to the completion of the line as an operatable line and would still be under way for some years after the line was operated. That is the actual state of affairs, that is the necessary result and that is a result for which there was no provision in the agreement. Consequently we are in the position we are in to-day. We have to choose whether or not the time has come for the company to take over this road, and if we find it has not come we are compelled to do what never was provided for in the agreement in the first place, namely, to operate the road until these outside works are got under way.
Does the hon. member for South Renfrew contend that his opinion on this matter is better than that of the Chief Engineer of the Transcontinental railway? Is it not a question of fact, is it not a question of railway engineering, whether the road is completed within the meaning of the Act or not? Does he contend that the certificate of the chief engineer is not as positive in its terms, is not as complete, as definite and specific as any certificate ever was? When does the time arrive? When can we call upon the company to take over the road?-when, under section 20 of the Act, is the road completed for the purpose of operation? The certificate of the engineer on that point is in these words. I find in his letter of March 10 last, addressed to myself, the following:
Answering your letter of 6th inst., I may say that I intended the certificate, dated February 2, 1915, (which I signed and forwarded in duplicate to Mr. H. A. Woods, chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, for him to sign) to he a certificate that in my opinion, as chief engineer of the National Transcontinental railway, it is completed and ready for operation within the
meaning and intent of section 20 of the agreement scheduled in the National Transcontinental Railway Act, 1903.


William Pugsley: Did the Solicitor General not ask him to write that opinion? Here is your letter of the 6th.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose that the hon. gentleman contends that I fathered the opinion of the chief engineer of the road?


William Pugsley: Undoubtedly.


Arthur Meighen: Then I must congratulate myself on possessing such dominating influence. The hon. gentleman must have great confidence in my engineering ability.


William Pugsley: I think that is a fair inference.


Arthur Meighen: That I asked him to write it? We will read the letter I wrote him:
March 6, 1915.
Gordon Grant, Esq.,
Chief Engineer, National Transcontinental, Ottawa.	[DOT]
Dear Sir,-Referring to your letter of the 23rd February and to the refusal of Mr. H. A. Woods, acting engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to sign the acceptance dated 2nd February, 1915, it is to be noted that Mr. Woods appears to base his refusal upon the claim that the road at present cannot be said to be completed within the meaning of section 20 of the agreement scheduled to the National Transcontinental Railway Act, 1903. Mr. Woods, I presume has in mind certain portions of the work which at present or rather at 31st December, 1914, the date upon which the audit is being made, may he said to be under construction. I have always understood, both from yourself and from the commission that although there are such portions that are still under construction, the same are not essential for the immediate operation of the entire line, and consequently that it would not be reasonable to wait for their completion until the said section 20 was acted upon.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Having so understood from him, and if I had not so understood from him would he not have rebuked that sentence in his reply?


William Pugsley: Read on.


Arthur Meighen: I will read more than my hon. friend wants:
Would you be good enough therefore, to state that in your opinion the Eastern Division was on 31st December, 1914, completed so far as essential for the efficient operation of the entire line at that time and now.


William Pugsley: Is that hot a request?


Arthur Meighen: A request? The chief engineer had sent* the certificate to them before I wrote the letter.


George Perry Graham: Why ask him to do it twice?


Arthur Meighen: Because at the time I wrote I did not know that his signature had appeared to the certificate. I knew that the certificate had been sent. I have here his actual signature which had been sent to me before my letter was written.


William Pugsley: That proves the correctness of what I said.


Arthur Meighen: Proves the correctness of what the hon. gentleman said-proves that he signed it-at my request when my request was made after he signed it?


George Perry Graham: The dates do not show that.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly they do. I
would commend the attention of the hon. member for St. John to the discussion -we had and the sentence that he uttered, and which is on Hansard, about four days ago, when, after about ten pages of Hansard were consumed with certain assertions that he made, he told the House that he had not the slightest idea whether they were correct or not.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend does not mean to misquote. If I remember rightly, what I was professing to state to the House, and what I did state, was that I had certain information in regard to important matters concerning the honour of this House. I was not aware whether my information was correct or not, but I urged that the question was of sufficient importance for the Government to give to the House the information which I was informed it had through the agency of its own secret service officers, or else obtain the information.


Arthur Meighen: And after so urging for ten pages, the hon. gentleman stated that he himself had not the slightest knowledge whether he was right or not.


William Pugsley: No. The hon. gentleman is entirely inaccurate in that. I was not professing to make a statement from personal knowledge at all; I was stating information which had been given to me, and I said that I was not aware as to whether or not that information was accurate.


Arthur Meighen: Before the night is out
I will undertake to quote out of Hansard what the hon. gentleman said, or what I have said he said, and if I am not correct I will apologize to the hon. gentleman.


William Pugsley: You will apologize for it.


Arthur Meighen: All right. I have no similar request to make to the hon. gentleman. He has admitted himself to be -wrong already to-night, and no apology would add anything to his humiliation.
We, Gordon Grant, chief engineer appointed by the Government of Canada for the Eastern Division of the National Transcontinental railway, and H. A. Woods, chief engineer, of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, hereby signify our acceptance to the Government of Canada and to the said company, of the work done in respect of the said eastern division.
Dated at Ottawa, this 2nd day of February, A.D. 1915.


George Perry Graham: Is that signed by anybody?


Arthur Meighen: It is signed by Mr. Gordon Grant.


George Perry Graham: The copy that was given me had not-his signature.


Arthur Meighen: The original was signed by him.


George Perry Graham: The copy in the return was apparently sent to Mr. Woods without any signature. I feel positive that Mr. Grant's -signature was not on the copy.


Arthur Meighen: What the hon. gentleman refers to is a copy attached to Mr. Grant's letter. The original as returned is signed by Mr. Grant himself and is in the possession of the Government.


George Perry Graham: Then I did not have a correct return.


William Pugsley: I have a copy here dated 2nd February, which does not profess to be signed by Gordon Grant.


Arthur Meighen: The original is
signed by Gordon Grant. I will let the hon. member see it, and it was received before my letter was written.
I suppose that hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to admit that the certificate of the engineer is definite, specific and complete, and that the engineer is the judge that we are bound to take upon so important a question as this, it being a question of engineering alone. We may be right or we may be wrong; unfortunately there is no summary way of deciding it. But there would have been if hon. gentlemen opposite

had done their duty in 1903. There is only one way of deciding it. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has not so far definitely and finally taken the position that they refuse to sign this lease. They have offered objections, but whether or not they intend to press them to the point of final refusal has yet to be divulged. At all events, whatever be the finding of the court, should the finding of a court unfortunately be necessary, or whatever may be the decision of the company should the company decide the matter without reference to the courts at all, it is undoubtedly the duty of the Government at this time to put themselves in a position to operate the road to the the best possible advantage, and to meanwhile make the tfery best of the situation.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are not content with arguing the position of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to the effect that they are not bound to take over the road because the road is not completed, but they try to fortify the position of the company in other regards, and they assert that the road has been degraded and that the company will not take this fine line of railway, running from Moncton to Winnipeg, because it is not quite a good enough railway to take care of the traffic that is going to offer in that northern country. Even were hon. gentlemen opposite correct in that, and even did the Grand Trunk Company take exception on that ground and prosecute the taking of that exception, surely they do not believe that the people of Canada for a minute will think that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are refusing to take over the road because it is not good enough to take care of the traffic and, because, forsooth, 'it has not cost quite enough money.
It is asserted also by hon. gentlemen opposite that an error has been made in the city of Quebec, that there has been' a change in the site of the terminals there, and that by reason of that change and by reason of the fact, as they assert it-although I do not know it is correct,-that that change has not been assented to by the company, we are not in a position to succeed in our action with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, should there be an action. I do not read clause 7 to the effect, that the direction of the road, and the location of the shops, and the like of that, are subjects upon which we must get the consent of the company, even though that consent, in this instance, may , have been refused. On that point I would
be glad to hear from the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) or any lawyer, or anybody else. It seems to be the interpretation of hon. gentmmen opposite, that in everything connected with this railroad, in the location of the line, in the location of the terminals, in the character of the curves, in the character of the grades, and everything else, we were completely in the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Well, unfortunately, in some degree, we are in their hands, and if, as the leader of the Opposition says to-night, we are delivered into the hands and at the mercy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, he is the deliverer, and he is the man who put us in that position in 1903. He is the man who committed the keys of the treasury of Canada into their hands, and enabled them to say what money we should spend, enabled them to say what the cost should be, enabled them to say that we are to spend a million dollars, if necessary, to get over a mere fanciful difficulty. He is the deliverer of the keys, and he is the man also who, while he delivered us in that degree at least, into the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, failed to insert in his agreement any security that would enable us to enforce judgment against that company to take over the road, if we got judgment. There is no adequate means of enforcement, I repeat again. That is not a criticism of the drafting of the contract; that is not a reflection on the ability of the men, as lawyers, who drafted it, but it is a reflection on the Government, who gave the instructions at the time as to what should be contained in that agreement. A lawyer is not to blame because he does not insert security, when he is not instructed to insert it by his clients, and the clients of Mr. Shepley and Mr. Gormully were the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. And, there is no security there, and even though we got a judgment where would we be to enforce it? That is the criticism of the contract I made the other night, and that is the criticism I repeat tonight.
There are other wounds; there are other defects in this contract, as the right hon. gentleman will not deny. The right hon. gentleman knows that already because of the fact that the meaning which he says was intended was not clearly stated in the contract, we have had to pay $12,000,000 of a penalty. I do riot know whether that is testimony to the legal attainments of the

men who drew the agreement, or if it is not better testimony to the skill of hon, gentlemen opposite to cover what they really intended to be the ultimate effect of the contract.
But these are not the only wounds. The right hon. . gentleman no sooner made the contract than he proceeded year after year to subtract from its effect and to alter it several times to the advantage of the company and against the advantage of the country. There might have been security if we could hold the Grand Trunk Railway Company, but can we hold the Grand Trunk Railway Company; have we recourse against the Grand Trunk Railway Company in the event of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company refusing to take over the line? We did have $5,000,000 in cash as security that they would complete the western section, and that they would equip the whole after they took it over, but we have not that security now. That is a wound inflicted by the 'right hon. gentleman himself. The right hon. gentleman allowed the company to change the $5,000,000 in cash into substituted securities, and I scarcely think he would value these securities to-day or take them at anything like $5,000,000.


William Pugsley: What are these securities?


Arthur Meighen: I have not a list of the securities, but I am confident of one thing, and that is that they are not worth $5,000,000 in cash.


William Pugsley: What are they?


Arthur Meighen: I understand they are
bonds of some American railways and some other securities, and I understand they are not worth $5,000,000, and that is a wound inflicted by the right hon. gentleman himself. More than that, there was a time when the Grand Trunk Railway Company were themselves compelled to take $25,000,000 of the stock of that company, and by reason of that clause the Minister of Finance at that time stood in his place in the House and said that the Government of the day had seen to it that the Grand Trunk be not partners only, but that they be of it and in it and form the whole thing. They may have formed the whole thing in one sense, but about two years after the hon. gentleman came along and declared, that inasmuch as they had advanced $5,000,000- the security the hon. gentleman has referred to-to the-Grand Trunk Pacific, they should get their $5,000,000 of paid-up stock without

paying another dollar. And, consequently, we are in the position we are in to-day, where we may have lost whatever advantage we otherwise would have secured from the backing of the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
The resolution before the Chair does not involve these questions. They have been raised by hon. gentlemen opposite. When they are raised, we are ready to answer them. The question before the Chair is simply this:	Should we not, now that we
are faced with at least the possibility of being compelled to operate this road for some length of time, be in a position to take over the line from Lake Superior Junction to Fort William in a manner and at a consideration that will be fair and reasonable and of advantage to the country? The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham).-says:	You should not on any account
acquire the line. If we cannot make an agreement to lease, we may be compelled to acquire it; but it is quite plain that if we can make a fair agreement to lease the line, that is the course we should pursue. My hon. friend says:	You may be
compelled to acquire the line, and if you are compelled to do so, you are going to be in an awkward position later on, because you will be owner of a vital part of the Transcontinental when the Grand Trunk are ready to take over the line and to operate it. It will be awkward, but it will not be so "awkward for us as for the Grand Trunk. It will put us in the position where we shall have the upper hand, and I do not think that will be a misfortune. We do not want to take any advantage of the company; we want to make a fair and reasonable bargain with them to operate the line in the event of our being able to do so; but if we cannot do that, then we should be in a position to expropriate the work or a leasehold interest therein in order that we can operate the rest of the line to advantage. The alternative painted as so disastrous by my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew would only put us in the position of having, if anything, the upper hand when later we come to negotiate with the company the leasing of the whole line and of taking over our interest in the Lake Superior branch as part of the system of the Transcontinental railway.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman has missed one point that I tried to make, whether I made it or not. This resolution gives the Government power to expropriate

is2S
not only the Grand Trunk Pacific property, but any other property. I had special reference in my remarks to that other property that might be left on the hands of the Government without any use for it.


Arthur Meighen: I was going to refer to that in my next sentence. It is, I believe, a fact that the terminals at Fort William are owned by the Grand Trunk Pacific Terminals Company. I may be wrong in that, but I am informed that that is the fact. The elevators, if they are not owned by the Terminals Company, are owned by some other company; but the Government is under no obligation by virtue of this resolution to take an interest, lease, hold or otherwise, in any property that it does not believe is essential to the proper management and operation of that branch and of the whole line. We do not require to take it; but is it not wise that we be in a position that we shall not have simply the bare line of railway from Lake Superior Junction to Fort William, but that we shall be able to get the terminals which the company consider necessary for the operation of the line? They are in the same position and the arguments as to them are analogous to and just as forcible as the arguments referring to the line itself. Our desire certainly is to get the accommodation works and terminals such as may be necessary for the operation of the branch in connection with the whole Transcontinental system, and this resolution gives us power to do that and no more. If we are not able by a friendly arrangement to lease those to advantage, then we want to have the weapon whereby we are not reduced to the one alternative alone, but whereby we shall have another recourse that will leave us in a position to make a bargain on the one basis or the other that will be fair and just and of advantage to the country.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend the
Solicitor General has frequently done to-night what he has so often done in this House in the past, that is, endeavoured very unfairly to throw upon the late Government the responsibility for the disadvantage to Canada which would ensue if the Grand Trunk Pacific did not operate the eastern branch of the National Transcontinental. My hon. friend says that one evidence of that responsibility is found in the fact that the late Government has not provided any machinery by which the company can be compelled to
enter upon the operation 6f the eastern division. When the late Government was making an arrangement for the construction of the Transcontinental line, it took certain obligations from the Grand Trunk and had in view, what I think both companies have kept in view also, th'at is, that the new line should form a part of the Grand Trunk system. My hon. friend now admits that security was taken to the extent of $5,000,000 for the operation of ' the whole line and also for the equipment of the eastern division; but he says: The Government released that $5,000,000 and took other securities. When I asked him what those securities were-


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that $5,000,000 was security for operation. Unfortunately it is not for that purpose. It is security for the equipment of the line.


William Pugsley: $5,000,000 are to be provided for the equipment of the eastern division with rolling stock.
My hon. friend threw out the imputation that the late Government had released that money and had got something of very little value in return. I, not having a personal knowledge of what the securities were and presuming that my hon. friend, before he made that statement to the House, would have informed himself of what those securities were and what their value was, thought it proper to ask him what they were and what their value was. So far from my hon. friend being able to prove that they are of little value, all he has been . able to say is that they are not worth $5,000,000. If they are first mortgage bonds of American railroads, paying their interest, it is not unlikely that they will be worth $5,000,000 in value. Their market value might be over $5,000,000. My hon. friend would have done himself more credit if he had informed himself of the facts before suggesting that the late Government had done an injustice to the country in connection with that security.
My hon. friend says there is no means of compelling the company to enter upon the operation of the eastern division. Unquestionably there would be if the Government had carried out its part of the bargain; but where two parties make a bargain, one of the parties cannot enforce it against the other unless he himself has carried out his part of it. That is admitted law. Any law student knows that after he has been three months in a law office. A difficulty about this case is-and no one knows better than my hon. friend-that the Government since

it came into power has deliberately and continually violated this contract, and therefore it finds itself to-day not in a position to compel the company to carry out its part of the bargain. If the Government had carried out its part of the bargain and this lease was presented to the Grand Trunk Pacific for execution and that company refused to execute that lease, any court in this country having proper territorial jurisdiction could be applied to for a mandatory injunction, which it would readily issue against the company, compelling it to enter upon the operation of the road, and in that respect to carry out the agreement which it had made.


Arthur Meighen: Of what value would that be?


William Pugsley: This Government is in no position to do that, because it has violated the contract so far as it is concerned. My hon. friend says: Oh, that cannot be so, because Mr. Gordon Grant, the chief engineer, has said that the road is completed. Mr. Gordon Grant has done nothing of the kind. My hon. friend, in his letter of March 6, is careful to let Mr. Gordon Grant know that if he can give a certificate which in some measure would satisfy, not the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company but the people of this country, that if the company did not enter upon the operation of the road they would be in fault and so in some way throw blame and responsibility upon the late Government, the Government would be much obliged to him for such a certificate. See how ingeniously my hon. friend writes:
X have always understood, both from yourself and from the commission-
Impressing upon Mr. Grant what he had given him to understand.
-that although there are such portions that are still under construction-
In other words: Although the road is not completed-because, of course, a road that is under construction cannot be said to be completed.
-the same are not essential for the immediate operation of the entire line, and consequently that it would not be reasonable to wait for their completion until the said section 20 was acted upon. Would you he good enough, therefore, to state that in your opinion the eastern division was, on 31st December, 1914, completed, so far as essential for the efficient operation of the entire line at that time and now?
Not that you will state that the road is completed according to the specifications; not that you will state that the contract

has been fulfilled by the Government by cairying out the agreement they made; but: that at the present time, having in view the possible traffic, the road can be efficiently operated.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is assuming that I did not ask Mr. Grant to state that the road was completed within the meaning of the contract, but that it was completed ready for operation.


William Pugsley: Quite so.


Arthur Meighen: What becomes of the hon. gentleman's argument when he learns that in the letter which Mr. Grant wrote in reply to me, he did state that the road was completed and ready for operation within the meaning and intent of section 20 of the agreement ? That must have been more or less voluntary, was it not ?


William Pugsley: The Solicitor General must not forget that he had conveyed it to Mr. Grant in the strongest way possible that the Government would be delighted to have from him some certificate which would show that the road was ready for efficient operation. But Mr. Grant knew, and my hon. friend knew, and so did the Government, that the road was not completed according to the specifications, and the contract had not been carried out.
My hon. friend says that Mr. Grant had given a certificate before that. But, as the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has said, the copy of that letter given to him does not profess
9 p.m. to be signed by Mr. Grant. I have a copy, and there is no signature. Let us see what he says as to justification for his signing that certificate. I would direct your attention and that of the committee to the letter of February 2 to Mr. Woods:
February 2, 1915.
A. H. Woods, Esq.,
Chief Engineer, or Acting Engineer,
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, Winnipeg. Main.
Dear sir,-Under section 7, of the schedule of the National Transcontinental Railway Act, 1903-
Which is the section my hon. friend from South Renfrew referred to.
-it was stipulated that the work to he done on the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway shall he subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of the chief engineer appointed by the Government and the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
Now, mark well what follows:
The Government is of the opinion that this provision has been complied with in every way.

but to put the matter of acceptance into desirable form, I enclose herewith formal acceptance which I have executed as chief engineer for the Government, and I would ask you to kindly sign as chief engineer, or acting chief engineer, for fhe company.
The enclosure is in duplicate, and you are at liberty to retain one of the copies for your company.
Tours truly,
Gordon Grant,
Chief Engineer.
Here you have the extraordinary fact that Mr. Grant excuses himself for this by saying that "the Government is of the opinion" that the contract has been complied with. He does not put it forward, as he dare not, as an engineer, put it forward, that the contract has been completed. He dare not put it forward that the road has been built according to the specifications. He says the Government is of the opinion and therefore encloses a certificate to be signed. But Mr. Grant, if left to himself, I do not think for a moment, would venture to say it.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that Mr. Grant would not say that, when he also says that Mr. Grant has executed a certificate to that effect?


William Pugsley: But he gives the reason. He puts it forward that the Government is behind him, and -intimates to the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific that that is the stand the Governmnent is going to take and he as an official of the Government signs it.
It does not need any one with engineering skill to determine that this contract was not complied with, that is admitted by the Government in their correspondence with the Grand Trunk Pacific. They admit that the road is not completed, but they say:	We
can go on and complete it in the future; but in the meantime, having in view the contract, it is not reasonable for you to ask the Government to wait, and you can well enter upon the efficient operation of the road. Now, the Solicitor General has called my attention to section 20, and says that the term there " when completed " means ready for operation. He would almost have you believe that it was so defined in section 20. But is it so defined? You must bear in mind that before section 20 we have section 7, which provides that the work is to be carried out under the joint supervision of the two engineers. They are to pass upon the work from time to time, and to see that it is according to specifications. Then when it comes to section 20 it says " when completed." Surely, that must mean wheh
completed according to the specifications. If I engage a contractor to build a house, to be four stories high, and if he builds the house only three stories high, surely he would not be justified in saying that he had carried out the specifications because the house had been so far completed that it could be comfortably occupied. Yet that is the argument of my hon. friend. If the contractor were to say to me: Money is scarce, and I will put on the fourth story three or four years from now, when it is more convenient for me to do so; but in the meantime, as your family is small, three stories will meet your requirements; move in and you will be very comfortable.


Francis Cochrane: But would your architect certify that it was four stories?


William Pugsley: According to my hon. friend, he should certify that it was completed.	-


Francis Cochrane: But would he certify?


William Pugsley: Yes, because what my
hon. friend argues is that completion means that it shall be in such condition that it may efficiently used. Well if it was three stories it could be efficiently and comfortably occupied. It is too absurd to argue for a single moment. Let any hon. gentleman read section 20 for himself, and I appeal now to fair-minded gentlemen on the other side .i the House. Section 20 says:
When completed the. said eastern division shall be 'leased to, and operated by, the company for the period of fifty years, at a rental, payable as follows:
Then it goes on providing for the rental. I think it is beyond question that that means when it is completed according to the specifications. No other interpretation can be put upon the words " when completed " in that 'section. My hon. friend says that the Government were remiss in . anotheT respect, that they had not provided as to when the road should be deemed to be completed. Have they not, sir? When they make a contract as to specifications does not the completion of the road mean when those specifications have been complied with and the road has been constructed according to the specincations? That is the completion of it. What does the minister do when he agrees to give to a company a railway subsidy of which a certain percentage is to be kept back until the road is completed? No one knows better than my hon. friend that the completion of a road according to the specifi-

cations which he had laid down would mean that the roadbed would be made, the rails and ties laid, the road ballasted, the turn-tables, telephone and telegraph lines, station houses and section houses built, all water tanks and all terminals provided according to specifications. Supposing a railway company come to the minister and say: Oh, well, now this road is completed. The minister says: It is not completed, you have not got all the water tanks you agreed to put on. You agreed to put on a 65-lb. rail and you nave only got a 50-lb. rail. Supposing the company said: In view of the traific, the few water tanks we have are quite sufficient and a 50-lb. rail is quite sufficient for the present traffic; we propose using light engines until traffic develops, and therefore, Mr. Minister, we want you to be convinced ny us that the road is completed because it can be efficiently operated in view of the present . traffic. Would not Ue minister say at once: It is not completed, I have laid down certain specifications and will not pay the balance of tne subsidy until you have completed the road according to those specifiations.


Francis Cochrane: Would the hon. member let1 me know in what part of the Act it calls for the building of a shop such as the Leonard shops in Quebec?


George Perry Graham: It is there in the agreement.


Francis Cochrane: I would like to see it.


George Perry Graham: I shall read it before I am through.


William Pugsley: What was done in this case? The late Government were exceedingly careful to appoint a good chief engineer to prepare the plans and specifications jointly with the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. It was reasonable that there should be a joint preparation of plans and specifications and joint supervision, because the Grand Trunk Pacific was to operate this line when it was completed. They were to engage upon the operation of it for fifty years and to pay a rental after seven years of 3 per cent upon the cost of it. Therefore it was reasonable that the company should have a joint supervision with the Government. That was the agreement which Parliament ratified in 1903, and which the people of this country ratified at the election of 1904. The late Government was careful to see that in all respects the terms of that contract were carried out and the

specifications carefully observed; and in the construction of the road, while the late Government was in power, the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific was consulted from time to time and everything that was done was done with the approval of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The specifications, as I understand, included the workshops both at Transcona and at Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman says everything was done with the approval of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Does he mean that word in its absolute sense, including the location of the line, location of shops, location of terminals, such as the right hon. leader of the Opposition says are necessary?


William Pugsley: I have always understood that. I know that after I came into the Government we were very careful always to see that nothing was done without the approval of the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. We recognized that that was the contract, and we thought it was the duty of the commissioners of the road to see that this approval was obtained from time to time.	_


Arthur Meighen: Including the location?


William Pugsley: Including the location. That would be my reading of it, that it would include the location, grades and curves and all the equipment of the line. It would include station-houses, terminals and workshops and everything else which would go to make a complete railway. My hon. friend makes a point of the location. I do not know whether there was any exception with respect to that, but I would think that location would be included because the plans and specifications must have to do with the location. What does section 7 provide? It provides:
In order to insure, for the protetcion of the company as lessees of the eastern division of the said railway, the economical construction thereof in such a manner that it can he operated to the best advantage, it is hereby agreed that the specifications for the construction of the eastern division shall be submitted to, and approved of by, the company before the commencement of the work, and that the said work shall be done according to the said specifications and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of the chief engineer appointed by the Government and the chief engineer of the company.
Therefore you have.it as plain as language can be made, in an agreement which was ratified by this Parliament in 1903, that the specifications shall be approved of by the company:	,

-and that the said work shall be done according to the said specifications and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of a chief engineer appointed by the Government and the chief engineer of the company.
Now, Sir, in case of a dispute between the two engineers, what is to happen? My hon. friend says that the late Government did not provide for what was to happen in that case; he says that the only remedy would be an appeal to the courts. I say that the section provides in the clearest possible manner as to what shall happen.


Arthur Meighen: In case of a dispute over some things.


William Pugsley: As to the completion of the work.
And, in the event of differences as to the specifications, or in case the said engineers shall differ as to the work, the questions in dispute shall be determined iby the said engineers and a third arbitrator, to be chosen in the manner provided In paragraph four of this agreement.
W:hat is meant by the work? It is the work of construction. How could there be a difference unless it was based upon the specifications? Then, as the work went on, from time to time one engineer might say: This work is not up to the specifications. The other engineer might say: It is up to the specifications. Differing, they would have an arbitrator called in, whom they would appoint, and if they failed to agree upon an arbitrator one would be appointed by the Chief Justice of Canada. What difference is there when the work is done? The Government says: Now this road is completed according to the specifications. The chief engineer of the company says: It is not, the work is not up to the specifications. That is a dispute between them, it is a dispute as to the work because the work must be viewed in reference to the specifications which have been provided as to the mode in which this work is to be done. They differ therefore on the question whether the complete work is up to the specifications or not. The Act provides that the questions in dispute
-shall be determined by the said engineers and a third arbitrator, to be chosen in the manner provided in paragraph four of this agreement.
Let me take as an illustration the case of a house that is to be built. A man makes a contract with a contractor for the building of a house. The contractor has an archi-. tect; the owner of the house has also an Architect. It is agreed that if there is any 116
dispute between the two architects under whose joint supervision the work is to be carried on, it shall be referred to a third party. Now, would any one suggest for a single moment that that would not apply to the work when it was alleged to be completed, just as much as it would apply to the work as it was going on from day to day during the progress of construction? That is exactly the present case. There is no difference at all. The work might be one-half or two-thirds or three-quarters or nine-tenths finished. One party claims that the work is finished according to the contract and specifications. The other claims that it is not. That is a dispute as to whether the work has been done according to and up to the requirements of the specifications. That is a dispute which these parties decide is to be determined by the two engineers, and in case they cannot agree is to be arbitrated upon by the two engineers and a third party to be chosen by the Chief Justice of Canada. Surely no man who is disposed to look at the matter from a fair and reasonable standpoint would say that the Government had not exercised every possible care and provided a tribunal to meet this very case.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Owing to the fact that the Quebec bridge will not be completed until the latter part of 1917, would the hon. gentleman advise this Government not to urge upon the Grand Trunk Pacific the need of taking over the road as a completed road before that time expires?


William Pugsley: I would urge the Government to do that. And let me say to my hon. friend that there is one thing that surprises me exceedingly, and that i3 that this Government did not do what we were about to do before the late Government left office, and that was to arrange for the operation of the various sections of the Transcontinental as they were completed from time to time, pending the completion of the whole line and the entering into of the lease.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Did the Government
make any arrangement to that effect?


William Pugsley: Two sessions ago I called the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that before the late Government left office a conference was held between a subcommittee of the Council, consisting of the then Prime Minister, the then Finance Minister, the then Minister of Railways, myself, and Mr. Hays, ishc president of the



Grand Trunk Pacific Kailway. Mr. Hays was then desirous of taking over the sections of the line as they were completed from time to time. At that time the road from Moncton to Edmundston was pretty nearly completed. Mr. Hays' proposition was this. He said that if the Government would let the Grand Trunk Pacific take possession of such	sections they would put	on
their rolling Stock and operate	the
line to the best possible advantage, they would keep an account as between the earnings and the expenses, they would have those accounts audited from time to time by a Government auditor, and if any profit was made they would put that into the treasury or give the Government credit for it, and if there was any loss the Government should pay that loss but it should be added to capital account to form a part of the cost of the Transcontinental railway on which the Grand Trunk Pacific would pay interest. I thought, as representing one of the Maritime Provinces-the province of New Brunswick, through the centre of which the Transcontinental passes-that it would be very desirable to make that arrangement, because the result would be that as the sections were completed the Grand Trunk Pacific would get the road in active operation and begin to stimulate industries along the line because they would all inure to the benefit of the company. That was the arrangement which the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific proposed to make. We went out of office before that section of the road was completed, and two years ago I asked the Minister of Railways if he had taken up with the Grand Trunk Pacific the question of making an arrangement such as that which Mr. Hays offered to make to our Government. He said not. I then asked him if he would approach the Grand Trunk Pacific and see whether they were still willing to make that arrangement. He promised to do so. That was two years ago, and my. hon. friend has not yet acquainted this House with the results of his efforts in that direction. I asked if there was any correspondence on the subject, but none has been brought down; and in the correspondence which has been brought down to-night there is a marked absence on the part of the Minister of Railways of evidence of any effort to induce the Grand Trunk Pacific to take up the operation of sections of the line upon those terms. Let me ask if it will not be to the interest of the Government to make that arrangement if the 
brrand Trunk Pacific is still willing to make it, and let me say to my hon. friend that when I told him of the arrangement which Mr. Hays was willing to make for the operation of the various sections of the line, he promised to take this matter up; and I think it is due to the House, if he has made that effort, to state what the result of it is, and to bring down any correspondence which he has bearing on the subject.
What does it propose to do? Without making any effort, so far as appears from the correspondence, to get the railway company to carry out the arrangement they were willing to carry out when the late Government was in office, this Government proposes itself to engage in the operation of the railway from Moncton to Winnipeg. What does that mean? It means that this Government has got to put this country to an expense of many millions of dollars to provide rolling stock, if they are going to give efficient operation, and to-night in almost the dying days of this session and after the Prime Minister had told my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition that no new legislation of a contentious character would be brought down, this Government brings down a resolution which, from the standpoint of the interest of this country and more especially of the interests of eastern Canada, is o'f a most contentious character. They bring 'down a resolution which if adopted would authorize them to spend not only millions of dollars in rolling stock without coming to this Parliament for an appropriation, but to spend at least $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 in acquiring the branch line of 180 miles from Lake Superior Junction to Port WiRiam, and in acquiring the branch line of 180 miles from Lake Superior Junction to Fort William, and a great many millions of dollars in acquiring the terminals of the Grand Trunk Pacific; and I am sure the terminals could not be purchased through me Exchequer Court for $30,000,000, and I doubt whether they could be purchased for less than $40,000,000. And yet they come down in the last days of the session and ask Parliament to vest them with authority to incur this enormous outlay involved in the resolution for which they are asking the assent of the House. Would it not be a thousand times better for this Government to make an arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific, who are to operate this line for

the future and possibly for all time to come, that they should engage in the operation of the line pending the completion of it and pending the entering into of a formal lease? The accounts should be kept under Government supervision, and if there was any deficiency it should be charged up to capital account on which the company would pay interest. That is the reasonable thing to do. That would not involve this country in any large expenditure. It would involve it, in case there should be any loss, only in the difference between revenue and cost of operating.
And if that were done we would have our hopes realized that the Grand Trunk Pacific would operate this Transcontinental railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific. So far as we in the Maritime Provinces are concerned, we have been looking forward with hope to the day when we would see the trains of the Transcontinental railway entering into the cities of the lower provinces, bearing their passengers and freight from the Pacific coast and from the territories and provinces of the West. But we are met to-night with a resolution which, if it carries, and if the Government act upon it, will in all probability destroy forever the hopes that we have had that the Grand Trunk Pacific is going to operate this eastern division as a part of the great transcontinental railway system.
What is back of this resolution? Surely, if it is only intended to temporarily operate the main line between Moncton and Winnipeg, it is not necessary to spend $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 in acquiring this branch from the main line to Fort William and the terminals at Fort William. If the Government operates the main line it can make arrangements with the Grand Trunk Pacific, no doubt, for joint running rights between Winnipeg and Superior Junction, and an exchange of traffic down to the terminals at Fort William. There will be. no difficulty about that. Would there be any more difficulty about that than there would be when the Government trains would reach Winnipeg? They would have no through service to the prairies of the West, from which the great traffic is to be drawn. They would have to secure an exchange of traffic with the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific at Winnipeg. Where is the objection to their doing what other railway companies, including the Government railway, are doing to-day-exchanging traffic upon fair and reasonable terms? But, while coming here to-night with the suggestion that all they want is to make a 116i
temporary arrangement pending the completion. of the line, they are asking Parliament for enormous powers. If it were not so startling a proposition to even suggest it, I would say that this is all in line with the course which this Government entered upon when they came into office of degrading this Transcontinental railway, refusing to consult with the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, refusing to take his advice, abandoning the workshops at Quebec, located on land which already had been bought and which was being laid out under the joint supervision and approval of the chief engineers of the Government and the company respectively, going nine miles away and arranging for the erection of workshops upon a different site altogether, the location of which, so far as I know, never was approved by the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Francis Cochrane: I have the word of the president of the road that he approved of everything that was done.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman produce that?


Francis Cochrane: I have the word of the president, I say.


William Pugsley: Where is that? In an important matter of this kind that should be produced.


Mr. COCHRAKE:: I will back up his word and I will prove that I have it. The word of the president is good and will stand anywhere.


William Pugsley: The only men under this contract who can speak as to the work of building this road are the chief engineer appointed by the Government and the chief engineer appointed by the company.


Francis Cochrane: I will take the word of the president for it.


William Pugsley: I think that when such an important change as that is made, if it has been approved by the chief engineer, we ought to have the certificate, or a memorandum, of that official. It has not been furnished to this Parliament and, in so far as the alterations in the grades and curves are concerned, we had at last session of Parliament before us letters from the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific distinctly refusing to accept the changes that this Government had made in respect to the building of the road. As far as I know there has never been any withdrawal of the objections that the company has made.

Aa I have said, if the Government had had in view the bringing about of the time when the company would refuse to enter upon the operation of this road, if they had had that in their minds, if that was the subject closest to their hearts so that they believed that they would be able to say to the people of the country; look what a position the late Government has brought this country into; they have constructed this road and the company of their own creation has refused to operate it-if that had been their purpose, or if they had been actuated by the other purpose of extending the Intercolonial railway and if they had deliberately set about to accomplish that purpose and to prevent the Grand Trunk Pacific from engaging in the operation of this road, they could not have taken a surer course to accomplish that than by degrading the road as' they did, altering the grades and putting in these momentum grades, altering the curves, altering the position of the terminals at Quebec and the location of the station and the workshops.
I do not believe that to be in the interest of the country. I quite agree that it would be desirable to have an extension of the Intercolonial westward but let it be done by arranging for running rights over the Grand Trunk Pacific, as provided for in the contract under terms to be agreed upon, and if they cannot be agreed upon to be fixed by the Governor in Council. I quite approve of that being done if terms can be arranged. But to take steps which may lead to the shutting out of the Grand Trunk Pacific from the operation of the eastern section of the road, which seems to be contemplated by the Government in view of the resolution, would be a disastrous step to take in so far as the interests of the country are concerned. It must be borne in mind that the whole traffic, or rather the greater portion of the traffic of the people's road east of Winnipeg, must be derived from our rich prairie provinces and from the Pacific coast. Suppose this Government were to expropriate the line on the Grand Trunk Pacific from Superior Junction down to Fort William and use the Transcontinental for their eastern operations, what would be the result? The Grand Trunk Pacific would still have their line running from Winnipeg to the prairies of the West and on to the Pacific ocean. It is not' an insuperable proposition for them to get from Winnipeg to Chicago and when they got to Chicago they would be in connection with the Grand Trunk railway sys-

tem and they would take the traffic of the West over their American line and down to American ports. They would in that way accomplish the very thing which the late Government wished to prevent when they insisted upon the operation of the eastern division right down to the ports of the Maritime Provinces by t)he Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
The matter, to my mind, is one of a most serious character. I wonder that the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) has consented to this resolution. Let me tell him that the people of the city which he is sent here to represent are demanding that the trains of the Grand Trunk Pacific shall be run ias soon as possible into the city of St. John and in the other cities of the Maritime Provinces. They would be astonished to lear \ that he has been a party to a proposition which looks to me, if it looks like anything at all, as a proposal to stop the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific at Winnipeg and leave it to seek other channels which would naturally be through American territory and through American ports. For these reasons I am entirely opposed to the resolution which has been submitted by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals.
A word with reference to a matter of lesser importance. There has been continually an effort made to magnify the cost of this Transcontinental railway. I asked if in this statement which the Government have sent to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company the interest had not been compounded, and the Solicitor-v-reneral said, no. I regret that I am compelled to differ from him, because in the very papers which have been submitted, we find, that up to the 31st December, 1914, the total cost is $172,132,943, and tne interest is all included, some $19,000,000, and n is all compounded.


Francis Cochrane: If the hon. gentleman will look at clause 15 of the Act, ne will find that it says:
The interest upon such outlay in each year shall be capitalized at the end of such year and interest charged thereon at three per cent per annum until the completion of the work and until the lessees enter into possession on the terms of the said lease.


William Pugsley: Quite right, and it
means, that the interest during that year shall be added- to the cost and then that total amount shall bear interest, but not compound interest.


Francis Cochrane: The calculation is
worked out according to the-Act.


William Pugsley: The statement which is attached to the correspondence shows clearly in detail that the interest has been compounded.


Mr. LALOR:: Did you ever understand
it in any other way?


William Pugsley: I understood it absolutely the other way, and any man who reads it, with any common sense, will understand it as I understand it. Let me read it again:
The interest upon said outlay In each year-
That is, the outlay in each year:
-shall be capitalized at the end of such year and interest charged thereon at three per cent until the completion of the work.
That does not mean compound interest, and the Solicitor General realized that was so because he told me that only simple interest and not compound interest had been charged. I find in a further statement which the minister was good enough to send over to this side of the House, that the very heading of the statement shows the interest was compounded, because it says:
Statement showing expenditures on the National Transcontinental railway, eastern division, to 31st December, 1914, and compound interest at three per cent per annum.
It is only a matter of a few million dollars in the total, but still it is an extraordinary thing that in the face of the provision in the statute, this statement should be sent to the company as the amount upon which they would be called to pay interest.
It does seem to me that the Government ought to make this temporary arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and I say to the Minister of Railways that from what Mr. Hays told me and told the subcommittee of Council of the desire of the company, and from what Mr. Chamberlain has told me since this Government came into office, I believe that if that company were approached in a proper spirit-and not in the spirit which is shown in this correspondence, compelling them to accept as completed a road which the Government knows is not completed according to the specifications, compelling them to begin at a specified time to pay interest, which they are not bound, under the law, to begin to pay until a certain period after the road is completed-if instead of acting in this spirit against this company the Government were to approach them and endeavour to have
them enter into this agreement, which the president of the company expressed his willingness to enter into when the late Government was in power, there would not be the slightest difficulty in bringing that arrangement about, and it is an arrangement which would be eminently in the interests of the people of the country.
The Solicitor General spoke about the Quebec bridge. The late Government had from the company a declaration in writing that they would not regard the Quebec bridge as an essential factor in connection with the construction and completion of the Transcontinental.


Francis Cochrane: That is not in the Act and there is no correspondence with reference to it.


William Pugsley: I know they agreed to it, and I think there is correspondence on the subject.
SiT WILFRID LAURIER: There was.


Francis Cochrane: It must have been taken away.


William Pugsley: I am certain that any objection, so far as that was concerned, wTas positively waived by the company, and in the correspondence which has been brought down there is no intimation, upon the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, that they rely upon the non-completion of the Quebec bridge. If the Government wants the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to enter into the operation of this line, why do they not approach them and ask them if they are willing to carry out the agreement they offered to carry out when the late Government was in power?


Francis Cochrane: We have asked them that.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman produce the correspondence on that subject ?


Francis Cochrane: I think there is a letter there.


William Pugsley: That letter does not say a word about it. What the minister is asking the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to do is to enter into a lease before the road is completed, and he is taking the ground that they are bound to enter into that lease and bound to begin paying rental within the seven years of entering into the lease. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company say: We will not do that, we are not bound to do that because the road is not completed according to the specifica-

tions. Has the minister requested the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to engage in the operation of the road pending its completion, and pending their entering into a formal lease? I told him two years ago, and he seemed impressed with it, and he told me he would act upon it, of the terms on which the company were willing to engage in the active operation of the road. It must he home in mind also, and this is another reason why we should not pass the resolution to-night, that by section 3 of the supplementary agreement of date the 2nd February, 1904, this Parliament provided that pending the completion of the whole line, arrangements might be made between the Government and the company for the operation of various sections. That clause of the supplementary agreement says:
Pending the completion of the eastern division by the Government, the company shall be entitled to lease from the commissioners, to be appointed under the said Act, and to operate such portions of the said eastern division, as may from time to time be completed, but upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the company and the said commissioners which terms are not to be more onerous than those of the lease of the whole division by the said contract provided for.	j f:
Eleven years ago, this Parliament recognizing the importance of having the Grand Trunk Pacific Company enter as quickly as possible upon the operation of the different sections of this road, provided -for the operation by the Grand Trunk Pacific of the -completed sections from time- to time.
Notwithstanding, as I have said, that the late Government had a definite proposition from the Grand Trunk Pacific to carry out their arrangement as provided in the statute of 1904, as far as this Parliament has been informed, the Government has never taken the slightest step to have that arrangement carried out.	*


Arthur Meighen: What section?


William Pugsley: Section 3 of the agreement of the 18th of February, 1904, which will be found on page 193 of the statutes of 1904.
Surely some regard ought to be had to what has been the view of this Parliament and of the country in the past. When we find that that view was that the company and the Government should endeavour to come to terms as to the operation of the different sections from time to time, surely the Government is not treating this Parliament or the people of this country rightly.

when, instead of endeavouring to make a fair and reasonable arrangement pending the completion -of the whole line of railway under the specifications and pending the arrival of the time when the company will be obliged to enter into a lease under which, after a definite period, they will begin to pay rent, the Government acts here to-night as if it were looking to the company not leasing the line and as if it contemplated taking over the whole system east of Winnipeg and the Grand Trunk Pacific branch and all the terminals at Fort William, which action will involve this country in an expenditure which I do not think will be counted at one dollar less than from $30,000,000 to $40,000,000. That is an enormous expenditure in which to involve the country when there is. no necessity whatever for it, when if the company were approached in a proper manner, they would enter into a fair and equitable arrangement to carry out the aspirations of our people to have one company operating the entire system from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Arthur Meighen: If we were not so accustomed in this House to the alarmful speeches of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), we might perceive a possible revolution in Canada if this fearful resolution should carry; but we are accustomed to his seeing in every proposal of the Government something dreadful, some awful ghost behind the door, some tremendous debt on the part of Canada, and, last of all and most fearful -and most to be dreaded of all, a possible injury to the port of St. John.


William Pugsley: And Halifax too.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), who was Minister of Railways and a colleague of the hon. member for St. John, openly and frankly stated at the commencement of the discussion that it was in the interest of the people of Canada that provision should be made now for the operation of this line in the event of the company not taking it over. The hon. member for South Renfrew went further than that. He stated that in his judgment it would be a blessing for tne people of Canada and nothing to be dreaded if we took over the Transcontinental line permanently and operated it. Yet the very fact that we take power to operate it in the only way in which it can be operated, that is, by securing the line from Fort William to Lake Superior Junction in some way or other, makes the hon. member for St. John

afraid that we are going to turn trade by way of Chicago and utterly demoralize the port of St. John. He also criticises us because we have not secured in any form the approval of the engineer of the road.
I thought, in my humble judgment, that I had shown that we had the certificate of the engineer in the most emphatic and definite form in which a certificate could be given. If the hon. member for St. John has any clearer or more definite form,
I do not think I am going beyond the mark when I say that I will undertake to have it signed by the engineer of the road, because I know the emphatic opinion of that engineer.
The hon. member argues at great length that we have not the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific to the location of certain lines in Winnipeg; that we have not their consent to certain alterations of the grade, which he says have been made, and he refuses to take the word of fKe minister that the company are finding no fault on that score at all, so anxious is he, if he can, to build up a case for the Grand Trunk Pacific to justify them in refusing to carry out their part of the agreement. While he is on his feet, he asserts that the Grand Trunk Pacific in all this correspondence have not as yet said that the line is not completed; that they have not found fault with anything that is not completed. If they have not said it, they are getting lots of opportunities to say it; they are getting lots of foundation for doing so out of the mouth of the hon. member for St. John. He says:	You have to get their
consent.


William Pugsley: The hon. member says
that I stated that it did not appear that the Grand Trunk Pacific contended that the road was not completed.


Arthur Meighen: That it did not appear in the correspondence.


William Pugsley: No. I stated that not
only did the Grand Trunk Pacific say that the road was not completed, but the correspondence said it was not completed.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend said
that the Grand Trunk Pacific said that the road was not completed, and he said the opposite as well. He takes both sides, just whichever side suits the argument he has in hand. He complains of the Government for not following the advice of the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. He complains of us for not following the advice
of a company that must ^e adverse to us, if we meet any adversity at all. At the same time he is criticising us because we are following the advice of our own chief engineer, in whom he says he has the utmost confidence himself. The Government of which my hon. friend was a member selecteu an engineer in whom it had confidence. Now he comes to us and says: You are not justified in following the advice of that engineer as to the completion of the road; you ought to take my opinion, and if you are not satisfied with that, you ought to take the opinion of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


William Pugsley: I said:	If there is a
dispute, leave it to arbitration.


Arthur Meighen: If there is a dispute,
leave it to arbitration as to whether or not the road is completed. I tried to get the opinion of the hon. member for St. John and he gave it to me; but he did not fortify it by any extended argument. He indulged in a few brief superlatives on the point, and that was all. Section 7 in no way contemplated arbitration as a method of determining when the road was completed. That section gave the right to the Grand Trunk Pacific to say as to the method employed and set out in the specifications and as to the method and manner of the fulfilment of those specifications. That was the view that appealed to me at the time. Whether I am right or not has never been decided by any one. That is what appealed to me, and that does not include and cannot be stretched to include the question of the completion of the road. Does the hon. member argue that the Grand Trunk Pacific has a right to say what shall be built and what not, and that if we cannot agree we must go to arbitration?


William Pugsley: Undoubtedly the chief
engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific has a voice jointly with the chief engineer of the Government as to whether the road is built or completed according to specifications. If they differ, then it is provided that the question whether the road is completed according to specifications or not shall be left to them and a third arbitrator.


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly, says the hon. member for St. John, as regards the question of what the Government shall build, not as to the character of the road and how it fills the specifications, but the extent of it: whether or not it shall include

shops hero or shops there, whether or not it shall include terminals, whether or not it shall include a branch, line into the city of Quebec, the Government has committed the country to the position that the Grand Trunk Pacific have just as much say as has the Government. I venture, on the other hand, not to take such a disparaging view of the work of the late Government as that. I venture to take the view that the late Government had committed into the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific a say and a determining say as to the character of the construction and of the specifications, but had not committed to them any determining say as to the location or extent of the work. Much less had they committed to them the question as to the completion. The hon. member is very emphatic, as he always is- it seems to be no effort for him to give a legal opinion antagonistic to the opinion of the Government; he is not hampered by anything, even by his own previous opinion. He said that the late Government always acquiesced in that view and always submitted to the Grand Trunk Pacific all these questions including location, and they went ahead with nothing without the consent of the company. Does he know whereof he speaks? I undertake to quote to him the opinion of the Minister of Justice of the Government to which he belonged directly conflicting with the opinion he announces to-night and directly supporting the view I have advanced, that no such powers were committed to the Grand Trunk Pacific, and, in effect, that the opinion expressed by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition that we are powerless now by virtue of the fact that we have not their consent-as he alleges-to the change in location of the terminal at Quebec, we are now in the hands and at the mercy of the Grand Trunk Pacific, is quite a mistaken opinion. The Minister of Justice of that day was confronted with this question, so was the deputy minister, so were the law advisors of the commission; and they with one accord gave the opinion that as to this matter of location of the work the Grand Trunk Pacific Company had no say at all. Does he disagree with that? Will he venture to deny it? I will read the opinion of the Minister of Justice of that day. It is dated 24th of January, 1906, and it is written to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), then leader of the Government.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman say that I was then in the Government?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member suggests that had he been a member of the Government his opinion would have been different.


William Pugsley: That may be very witty on the part of the hon. gentleman-


Arthur Meighen: It is very true.


William Pugsley: -but what the Solicitor General said was that the Government of which I was a member took a different view. I wish to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that I was not a member of the Government until a year after.


Arthur Meighen: But the hon. member
said that his Government always took the view that this was a matter for co-operation and within the power of the Grand Trunk Pacific to concur in, and had "Iways acted upon that view. And the leader of the Opposition argues to-night that we must get their consent to any change whatever in location-
SIR WILFRID LAURIER: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: Of location of terminals.
SIR WILFRID LAURIER:	I say you
must adhere to the specifications for the building of the road.


Arthur Meighen: That is, we can change
no location-
SIR WILFRID LAURIER: I did not say location. I said that' the specifications for the buiding of this road had been agreed upon by the engineers of the Government and of the company, and you cannot change it without the consent of the company.


Arthur Meighen: That is, we cannot change the location if the location is set out in the specification.
SIR WILFRID LAURIER:	I did not
speak of the location.


Arthur Meighen: Then I misunderstood the right hon. gentleman.
SIR WILFRID LAURIER: The hon. gentleman cannot say I mentioned the location of the road. I said that when, the plans and specifications for the building of the road the building of shops and so on, had been agreed to by the officers of the company and the Government, you cannot change it without consent.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the right
hon. gentleman to argue that we had changed the location of the terminals at Quebec, and I understood him 10 p.m. to argue just as strongly that the terminals at Quebec were part of the road.
SIR WILFRID LAURIER: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Consequently he argues that we have changed the location of the road.
SIR WILFRID LAURIER :	No, that is
too thin.


Arthur Meighen: I will repeat what the hon. gentleman says is " too thin," and ask him in what he finds fault with it. He argues that we have changed the location of the terminal; he argues that the terminals are part of the road and you have to build them before you build the road, consequently, he argues, we have changed the location of the road itself.
SIR WILFRID LAURIER:	No; what I
said is, that the shops and the station are part of the road-you cannot run the road without shops and stations-and the shops at Quebec, being part of the road, and having been approved by the engineers of the Government and the company, you cannot change them without the consent of the company.


Arthur Meighen: Change them in what
respect?


Wilfrid Laurier: You cannot
move them five or ten miles.


Arthur Meighen: Well, that is location.


George Perry Graham: And the specifications
have been changed as well-


Arthur Meighen: That is as to character; and that has been consented to.


George Perry Graham: Where has it been consented to?


Arthur Meighen: At Quebec.


George Perry Graham: I asked for the correspondence, and I went through it very carefully. It showed that a conversation had been held with the Minister of Railways by Mr. Chamberlin, if I remember well; that conversation was referred to, but when the Government attempted to make that out to be a consent, as I remember the correspondence, the solicitors of the Grand Trunk Pacific immediately
objected and said they did not give consent.


Arthur Meighen: It may have been given since.


Francis Cochrane: You will take Mr. Chamberlin's word, I suppose?


George Perry Graham: The Parliament of Canada can only know what takes place by the correspondence and returns given to it. We asked the Government to give us the negotiations and correspondence, and surely agreements of this kind would not be taken verbally when so much depends upon them. That correspondence does not show one word as to the acceptance of either a change in the specifications or location, but it states positively that the consent was not given.


Arthur Meighen: It may not have been
given at the time, but it may have been given since.


Wilfrid Laurier: Where is it? Mr. GRAHAM: Where is it?


Arthur Meighen: Notice the eagerness
of hon. gentlemen opposite to get off the point of the location-both crying at once.
I am not arguing but that if the specifications, in so far as they cover the method of construction, are agreed to they must be lived up to, unless they are departed from by mutual consent.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I am not arguing differently from that, but I am arguing that the matter of location is within the power of the Government, at all events in opinion of the gentleman who was the Minister of Justice under the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). That opinion completely destroys the position he took here to-night.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let us hear
it.


Arthur Meighen: The right hon. gentleman wants me to read the opinion. He may find " location " in it though he dreads it so much. This is the opinion:
Referring to Mr. Parent's letter to you of 22nd instant, enclosing copy of a letter to him of 20th instant, from Mr. Morse, the vicepresident of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, in which Mr. Morse states that under section 7 of the agreement between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of the 29th July, 1903, the company claim the absolute unequivocal right to pass upon the location of the eastern division before it is adopted, I desire to say that I have considered

attentively the claim so made, and conferred upon the subject with the Deputy Minister of Justice, and we agree in the following conclusions :


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: The right hon. gentleman has not heard the conclusions yet:
1.	Section 5 of this agreement gives the Government the uncontrolled discretion to determine the location of the eastern division.
2.	This discretion is not limited or affected by clause 7.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: That is the clause hon. gentlemen opposite rely upon.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear. If that is not limited or affected by clause 7, what does limit or affect it?


Wilfrid Laurier: We can locate the road, and in that location the company has nothing to say, according to that opinion. Does the hon. member pretend that the opinion of the late Minister of Tustice says that when the road has been located we can change it again without the consent of the company?


Arthur Meighen: Wherein are we restrained?


Wilfrid Laurier: By common sense. Does the hon. gentleman pretend that when we had located the road and placed it at a certain point, after we had spent millions upon it, it was open to the Government to change it and put it ten or fifty miles to one side? That is perfectly absurd. We located the road. According to the Minister of Justice we had the right to locate the road, and we did, and after the road had been located we laid down the specifications. The specifications included the stations and workshops. Those specifications we submitted to the company and their engineers and they were approved by both engineers. I say that when this was done they could not be changed without the consent of the company.


Arthur Meighen: Why?


Wilfrid Laurier: It would be monstrous to pretend anything else.
Mr. MEIGHEN': As to the location of shops, the engineers had nothing to say. Even if the hon. gentleman got their approval of the location of the shops and made a bargain he did not need to do so,
[Mr. Meighen.j
'according to the opinion of his Minister of Justice.


Wilfrid Laurier: It would be monstrous to pretend that on a road to be leased to a company, upon which they would have to pay a rental, when we had to have their consent as to rails, ties, culverts and everything of that kind, they would have nothing to say as to the location and character of the shops and the location of stations.


Arthur Meighen: I would ask my right hon. friend not to mix in the character with the location. The author of that monstrous provision is his own Minister of Justice.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all;
nothing of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: Section 5 of this agreement gives the Government the uncontrolled discretion to determine the location of the eastern division.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear; to put it here or to put it there


Arthur Meighen: To put it here or to put it there, and it does not require the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Is that not right?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, I submit it to the fair judgment of anybody, that when we had located the road at this point my hon. friend cannot pretend that after we had built it we could say to the Grand Trunk Pacific: We discard all that; we are going to locate another road apart from this.


Arthur Meighen: It might be monstrous when we had built the road to change, but that would be a matter of business judgment. As to the matter of law, our right to locate the road begins at the commencement and ends with the completion of the road.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is coming all the time to the location of the road. The point is, could you change the character of the road when it had been located?


Arthur Meighen: The character of the road is not under discussion at all; that is only what my right hon. friend wants to get under discussion as soon as possible. It is the location that is under discussion.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: That location is determined on without reference to the com-

pany; there is no need of reference to them; and if my hon. friend got their consent and made them a party to the contract, he did not have to do so. It is located without reference to them, and, within the discretion of the Government, they could change that location at their will.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all. I dispute that point altogether. There is nothing in the letter of the Minister of Justice to justify that interpretation.


Arthur Meighen: I would like the right hon. gentleman to tell me when their discretion ceases. He says we can locate it; he admits we do not need to get the consent of the company; and, therefore, we locate it. We do not get their consent. Now, up to what time is our discretion free, and when is it restrained? It never is restrained; we have full discretion as to the location at all times, and we are restrained by no legal limitation whatever, but only by our sense of what is in the interest of the road and of the people.


Mr. DEVLIN:: What interpretation does the Solicitor General give to the word "work" in the seventh line of section 17, where it says that the work shall be done according to the specifications. Does it mean the undertaking?


Arthur Meighen: It means the Transcontinental railway. But would it not be well for me to finish with this opinion, now that I am in the middle of it, before we get into another section?
This discretion is not limited or affected by clause 7, which provides only for approval by the company of the specifications for construction and joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of the work of construction by the chief engineers of the Government and the company.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: That is only quoting from the Act. But his minister stated what that meant and all it meant, and with that he and the hon. member to his right (Mr. Graham) are entirely in disagreement to-night, because it suits them in order to oppose this resolution.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: The agreement is by law to be construed favourable to the Government, but even without invoking this canon of construction it is not thought possible to hold that there are any words or implication in clause 7 entitling the
company to a voice in the location of the eastern division. This section refers to specifications for construction and work of construction, which are matters quite distinct from
location. A very clear opinion and a very reasonable opinion, I think.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think so, too.


William Pugsley: The location precedes the making of the specifications, does it not ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know'.


William Pugsley: Yes, the location is first made by the engineers, and then the specifications are made upon the- location.


Wilfrid Laurier: He does not know that.


William Pugsley: Is it not entirely consistent with the opinion of the late Minister of Justice that while the Government fix the original location, when the specifications are completed there can be no change without joint approval ?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. Whatever the (Government has uncontrolled determination of, that uncontrolled determination continues from the beginning to the end; what they have not uncontrolled determination of they cannot change once that point in the specifications is agreed to.


Wilfrid Laurier: And the conclusion of my hon. friend on this opinion is that when the line has been located in a certain part, the shops necessary to operate that line can be located nine miles away from that line.


Arthur Meighen: The location of the shops is within the discretion of the Government.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly.


Arthur Meighen: And my right hon.
friend exercised that ancf built the Trans-cona shops five miles awray from the terminal point.


Wilfrid Laurier: On the road.


Arthur Meighen: But they have to go five miles.


George Perry Graham: No, they do not. They would have if they started from Winnipeg, but they do not all have to go to Winnipeg.


Arthur Meighen: Does he mean that cars going to Winnipeg would stop five miles out for repairs ? The right hon. leader of the Opposition says that this has all been decided by arbitration-that we had to

build the Transcona shops and the Quebec shops. His Government was committed to both shops, at Quebec and at Transcona, by reason of opinions given at the time upon which they relied. There were opinions to the contrary, and that question was never referred to the board of arbitration of which Sir William Whyte was chairman.


Wilfrid Laurier: Was it not ?


Arthur Meighen: No, the question that was referred to Sir William Whyte-and I am sure the hon. member for Renfrew will bear me out in this-was not whether it was upon the Government of Canada or upon the Grand Trunk Pacific to build those shops. What was referred to him was the matter of the rentals, the terms upon which the Grand Trunk Pacific were to get a lease of the line from Lake Superior junction to Winnipeg, and some other questions also involving cost of construction that were at issue between the company and the Government.


George Perry Graham: Let me put my hon. friend right, because he is altogether wrong. One of the questions referred by the Minister of Railways and Mr. Chamberlin to Sir William Whyte was:
Are the shops at Transcona and repair shops at divisional points or any of them to be regarded as a portion of the eastern division?
There was also a question about rental, but that question about the shops was asked plainly. My hon. friend has asked me a question, so that we had better clear the matter up now. The contention of the Minister of Railways and of the Solicitor General is that the question submitted to Sir William Whyte was not, are the shops a part of the eastern division, but, what rental should be paid if they are not? Let me just put the question as the Minister of Railways put it, and then I will give the award of Sir William Whyte, because it will clear up beyond a peradventure that his award was that these shops at every divisional point are a part of the National Transcontinental railway, and that the road cannot be conveniently operated without the completion of those shops. This, is the reference made by the Minister of Railways and Mr. Chamberlin:
Ottawa, Dec. 4, 1912.
Sir William Whyte,
Winnipeg. '
Will you act as sole arbitrator between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway to fix the rental to be paid for use of that portion of the Transcontinental railway line between Winnipeg and lake Superior junction pending completion of the entire line

through to Moncton? If so, necessary information will be sent you directly and arrangements made with the Grand Trunk Pacific officials at Winnipeg to furnish train so that you can go over the line and make the necessary examination ; also any other information.
It was agreed that the following questions should be submitted to Sir William Whyte.


Arthur Meighen: By whom?


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Railways and Mr. Chamberlin. I am going to read the submission as it appeared in the official correspondence placed on the table a year ago:
(1)	What is a fair rental for the use of that portion of the eastern division between Winnipeg and Lake Superior junction, exclusive of the shops hereinafter mentioned, until the eastern division is completed, sufficient for operation within the intent and meaning of the agreements and Acts hereinafter mentioned, with a ferry at Quebec?
(2)	Are the shops at Transcona and repair shops at divisional points or any of them to be regarded as a portion of the eastern division, within the intent and meaning of the agreements of July 29, 1903, and of February 18, 1904, and Acts confirming the same?
. (3) If not, what is a proper rental for the use of such shops, or any of them, by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for any railway purposes they may desire until the eastern division is completed sufficient for operation ?
I think it will be agreed that question No. 2 plainly states the case as I stated it: Are the shops at all divisional points a part of the eastern division? Here is the award of Sir William Whyte, who heard everything in connection with the case:
With respect to the shops at Transcona, considering their location and the circumstances under which they were produced and furnished, and the specifications; and interpreting the said agreements and Acts in the light of modern railway practice, and considering the contemplated use of the said eastern division by other railways, I award, order and determine that the said shops are to be regarded as and are a portion of the said eastern division within the intent and meaning of the said agreements of the 29th of July, 1903, and the 18th of February, 1904, and Acts confirming the same.
Further, he did not stop there. The balance of his finding refers to the shops at Quebec and other divisional points. Hon. gentlemen will pay strict attention to what Sir William W7hyte says if they wish to hear the decision of one of the greatest railway men America ever had-a man whom the Minister of Railways had such confidence in that he referred this very question to him. What does he say as to the shops at divisional points, and as to their necessity to the operation of the road:

I further award, order and determine that all repair shops at divisional points are to be regarded as and are a portion of. said eastern division within the intent and meaning of the said agreements of 29th July, 1903, and of the ISth February, 1904, and of the Acts confirming the same. I consider these are a material part of the railway and necessary convenience for its proper and efficient operation.


Arthur Meighen: That is as the hon. gentleman said it was referred to him, but that does not contradict what I stated was not referred to him: that is, whether or not it was incumbent 'to build those shops as a part of the road. If the Government builds them under -the Transcontinental Commission the Government by that act admits they are a part of the road, and there could be no other finding. The Government had long before submitted to its own Minister of Justice and Deputy Minister of Justice the question whether or not they should build them, and they had determined to build them. After that, whether right or wrong, they became a part of the road of course. But how does that affect the present discussion?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend made a statement that-


Arthur Meighen: I made the statement that the question whether or not they should be constructed was never -referred to him.


George Perry Graham: It was.


Arthur Meighen: They were built before that.


Wilfrid Laurier: The question was this. If they were improperly built, then there was no rental on them; but if they were a part of the road and properly built there was rental. '


Arthur Meighen: I agree with that, but the very fact that they were built under the commission was an admission that they were part of the road.


George Perry Graham: Several of them were not built.


Arthur Meighen: The work was under way.


George Perry Graham: The Quebec shops had not been started.


Arthur Meighen: There was no reference to him about that at all.


George Perry Graham: It is a divisihnal point, and so would be included.


Arthur Meighen: The Transcona shops
was all that was referred to Sir William Whyte.


George Perry Graham: The shops at all divisional points.


Arthur Meighen: They were a part of the road undoubtedly. The Government decided that the shops should be built as part of the road.


George Perry Graham: After this award the
Government gave the contract.


Arthur Meighen: And the Grand Trunk Pacific took the line over under rental. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has made some other suggestions that he thinks we should act upon. He says if we pass this resolution it involves an expenditure of $30,000,000 or $40,000,000. He is doing the best he can to establish a value for the Grand Trunk Pacific in case they stand solid on the rental and we are bound to expropriate. Anything he can do, he is going to do in order to saddle on the Government as large an expenditure as possible. There is nothing in the resolution compelling us to buy or acquire the road.


William Pugsley: Why then do you ask for authority?


Arthur Meighen: As I have -already explained, in order that we may not be compelled to lease from them, at their figures, in order that we may have an alternative, and in order that they will be more likely to be fair and reasonable in deciding on the terms. Those are all the powers asked for. But, says the hon. member for St. John, here is your agreement for 1904. If you just act upon that, that is all you need to do. He says that a way is pointed out in clause 3 of the agreement of 1904, and that if we simply take that up with the Grand Trunk Pacific -all our difficulties will be solved. What is that clause 3?
Pending the completion of the eastern division by the Government, the company shall be entitled to lease from the commissioners, to be appointed under the said Act, and to operate such portions of the said eastern division as may from time to time be completed, but upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the company and the said commissioners, which terms are not to be more onerous than those of the lease of the whole division by the said contract provided for, save in so far as may be necessary to give full effect to the paramount right of the said commissioners next hereinafter mentioned, and subject always to the paramount right of the said commissioners to use and operate the same without any payment of tolls or other compensation for such purposes as they

may deem necessary or expedient in the execution of their commission.
In other words, that clause gives the Grand Trunk Pacific the right to demand from the Government power to lease any portion of the road as it becomes complete, but upon terms not more onerous than those upon which they could lease the whole line were it complete. We are in this position: the Grand Trunk Pacific have the right to lease the whole line as it is now upon the terms of their contract. They have the right to call upon us to lease the line upon terms not more onerous and my hon. friend says that they now take the position that they would take over this road even were they to rely upon clause 3 because they have a right to demand a lease on terms not more onerous. If they would not take these terms under which they would pay no rent at all haw does the hon. gentleman expect us to make a lease and get some rent from them? They are now in a position to take over the road and pay no rental for seven years. We act not at all upon this resolution unless they refuse to do it. Assume that they have refused to take over the line and run it rent free for seven years, what success are we likely to have in asking them to enter into a lease which involves the payment of rent?


William Pugsley: Surely the hon. gentleman could not have heard my words else he would not have made that statement. I referred to the arrangement which the late president, Mr. Hays, proposed to make and which I understood, in conversation with Mr. Chamberlin, they were willing to make after this Government came into power- that is, that they would equip the completed sections with proper rolling stock and operate them subject to Government supervision and Government audit.. If there was any surplus the Government would get the benefit of it, and if there was a deficit that should be added to capital account, upon which they should pay interest.


Arthur Meighen: I knew that the hon.
gentleman referred to that matter. That was the alternative that he proposed, but afterwards he came to section 3 and called upon us to act under section 3.


William Pugsley: That was based on section 3.


Arthur Meighen: And section 3 gave the company the right to run the road on certain terms. They now refuse to take it

and run it for nothing, and the hon. gentleman expects us to make a bargain with them to run it on terms. If they take the road now, of course this resolution will not be acted upon. Let us take the hon. gentleman's other suggestion. It is this:	We ought to
make a bargain with the company whereby they would operate the line and if there was a deficit it would be added to capital account upon which they would later pay interest. The hon. gentleman will see that that involves an additional obligation, an additional burden upon the company. It means that the annual deficits will pile up and accumulate, and that the already large rental which the company will be called upon to pay under the agreement will be added to by that means. It involves that obligation, that additional burden, on the back of the company, and a very heavy additional burden it will be.


William Pugsley: Why do you assume that there will be a deficit?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman assumed that. He said that the annual deficit would be added to capital account and that they would pay interest upon it.


William Pugsley: I said that if there was any profit it would be handed in, and if there was any deficit it would be added to capital.


Arthur Meighen: If there was any profit the company would get it, and if there was a deficit we would pay it and add it to capital.


William Pugsley: Surely the hon. gentleman must be doing that intentionally? Why does he misquote? I did not say that if there was any surplus or profit it should go to the company. I said that if there was any surplus it would go to the treasury, to the country, and that if there was a deficit it would be added to capital.


Arthur Meighen: I thought the hon. gentleman said that it would be paid to the company. If there is any profit it goes to the country and if there is any deficit it is to be added to capital and the company pay interest upon it. Consequently the company cannot make a dollar out of the proposition and it will be only adding to the burden-


William Pugsley: They offered to enter
into it.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman show me where they offered to do that?


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon.
friend again, so that there will be no doubt about it, and I am speaking in the presence of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and of the former Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), that it was at a meeting, where we were considering the whole question of operating the sections. A subcommittee of Council composed of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, the then Minister of Railways and Canals, the then Minister of Finance an'd myself met with Mr. Hays, president of the company, and Mr. Hays made that clear and distinct statement. Since that time Mr. Chamberlin has repeated that statement in my presence.


Arthur Meighen: If he company were in a mood like that when the hon. gentleman was Minister of Public Works, and his Government were in office, and if they were whiling to enter into a bargain where they had no chance to make a dollar and a great chance to lose, I wonder why, with a company in that mood, the hon. gentleman did not make a better bargain than he did. Ready to make a bargain whereby, if there is a profit, it goes to the country and whereby if there is a loss they are prepared to pay the interest on it! A business company ready to make a bargain of that kind!


William Pugsley: They would get their
operating expenses.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say they
would get the money that they paid and I have no doubt they would appreciate the privilege they had of getting back all the money they had paid out. This resolution becomes operative if they refuse to take the road over. They have the right to run the road now for seven years for nothing and if they have any profit they have a right to take it. We assume that they have refused that proposition to take the profit and run the road for nothing. Having refused that they will be quite ready, the hon. gentleman says, to enter into another bargain, namely, one whereby they would not have any profit at all but would pay the interest on the loss. If the company do not refuse we have no resolution, or the resolution will not go into operation. But the hon. gentleman says that a company that has refused to operate for nothing and take the profits, would be quite ready to operate, give the profits to the public and pay interest on the loss.


William Pugsley: Why do you not see if they will do that? I venture to say that if you honestly tried to get them to do it they would do it, as the Minister of Railways and Canals assured the committee he would try.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Railways and Canals has not told the committee yet of the way that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company treated the proposal which my hon. friend said they would willingly enter into. Surely the absurdity of it would appeal to any person to suggest that a company that has the right to run the road for nothing and take the profits, and which has refused that, is going to consent to run the road, pay the profits, if any, into the Government and pay the interest on the deficit.
I wish to make an explanation on a point raised by the hon. member for St. John. When he spoke he raised the question of compound interest and asked me about it. I told him that it had been computed by the auditor, and that no instructions had been given to the auditor. At the time I had received an intimation which I understood to imply that it was compound interest.


William Pugsley: That it was simple
interest.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is quite right; I understand the auditor to say that it was computed on the basis of simple interest. I have seen the auditor since, and I find that I misunderstood his intimation to me, and that it is compound interest. There were no instructions given to the auditor at all. The statute was before him when he made the calculation, and the auditor determined upon his own judgment absolutely that the statute called for a compound interest calculation. I do not want to act as judge upon this point, but I wish to say that the hon. member for St. John quite overstated the matter when he said that the statute was very clear that no compound interest should be charged. Certainly, the country has to pay compound interest upon it; certainly the least to be said is that one would have thought that it would be called for. It seems, upon reading the section, that if anything the view of the auditor is better than that of the hon. member for St. John. How does the section read?
The expression "cost of construction," in the case of the eastern division, shall mean and include all the cost of material, supplies, wages, services and transportation, etc.... cost of engineering, maintenance, repairs and replace-

ment of works and material during- construction, and superintendence, bookkeeping, legal expenses, and, generally, costs and expenses occasioned by the construction of the said division, whether of the same kind as, or different in kind from, the classes of expenditure specially mentioned, including interest upon the money expended ;-
That is to say, that in the outlay of any year, the interest outlay of that year is a part of the cost of construction. I will ask the hon. member to remember that.
-the interest upon such outlay-
Which means the interest upon the annual outlay, including interest-
-the interest upon such outlay in each year shall be capitalized at the end of such year, and interest charged thereon at three per cent per annum until the completion of the work, and until the lessees enter into possession under the terms of the said lease.
It is a question of what the word " out-_ lay " means, and if " outlay " means, as a reasonable interpretation would say, the cost of construction during the year before, then certainly it is compound interest. If it means the same as the "cost of construction" of the year before then it is compound and it can be nothing else, because, in the course of construction, the interest payment of that year is included. So that it would mean the interest upon (x plus y) all payments for other purposes and all payments for interest.


William Pugsley: It is added to the outlay in that year, of course, and then at the end of the year that represents the expenditure of that year. The Act says it shall bear interest at three per cent until the completion of the line, but not that that interest shall be compounded each year as has been done here.


Arthur Meighen: If interest shall include interest outlay during the year, then it includes the interest upon outlay during the year, and, consequently, interest upon outlay means interest upon interest outlay.


William Pugsley: True it is the interest
for that year which is added, but then the statute goes on and says that that total outlay for that year including the interest shall only bear interest at three per cent until the road is completed. Suppose a man gives a note of $1,000 payable in ten years at 6 per cent, you cannot compound up that interest every year, but at the end of the period you get your principal amount and the interest at 6 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: If, on the other hand, it	says	tnat interest in	eachyear	shall	be	part of	outlay,	and
that interest shall be capitalized at the end of the year, that means compound interest. However, I am not arguing that there is no other view reasonably tenable; I am only arguing that the auditors had very good ground for their view, and in my humble judgment they have the better ground of the two. The auditors followed this view and took this course upon their reading of the Act, and askeu for no opinion upon it.


William Pugsley: What is the legal opinion of the Solicitor General?


Arthur Meighen: My own opinion is that the auditors' view is more reasonable than that of the hon. member for St. John. I am not in the habit of deciding things and saying there is no possible other view at all; I am not of that habit especially when I possessed just a few years ago an entirely different opinion, and that is the position the hon. member for St. John is in to-night.


William Pugsley: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes. He argued tonight that the question of location is as much a matter for the Grand Trunk as for us, when he knows that his Government acted upon the very opposite opinion given by the Minister of Justice of that day.


William Pugsley: I know they did not. When the location is once agreed upon and the specifications based on it, that is the end of it.


Arthur Meighen: The question of location, according to his own Minister of Justice, never had to be agreed upon.


William Pugsley: What has placing the workshops nine miles away from the line of the Transcontinental and buying a road from another company, got to do with the location of the line? Is not that changing the whole character of the terminals so far as the workshops are concerned?


Arthur Meighen: It is changing the location, that is all; changing that portion of its character, but nothing else, and that is something within the purview of the Government alone, and has always been held to be.
What I am now about to say does not concern the issue, but I promised the hon. member from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that

I would call attention to his own words and appeal to the House as to whether I did not properly represent him. To do so, I will read the statement that preceded the remarks of the hon. member. Some discussion ensued between him and the Minister of Militia as to certain allegations which on certain information the hon. gentleman from St. John had made, and this took place:
Major General Hughes:	The hon. gentleman
has not the slightest particle of evidence that there is a tittle of fact in what he has stated, and he cannot produce any. He cannot show that the British Government in Britain, in Canada, in the United States, or in any other part of God's green universe, ever was able to get mark vii ammunition at less than $35 a thousand, excepting the one lot that I had the honour of being instrumental in getting for $33 per thousand.
Mr. Pugsley:	My hon. friend may be absolutely correct. I have not the slightest idea as to whether I am correct or not. It may be that the gentleman who gave me this information gave me false information.
Is not that just about what I said? And so we see from this that the hon. gentleman took upon himself to impugn the honour of the Government upon information which he had not the slightest idea was correct or not.


William Pugsley: I do not think the hon. member is right in saying that I impugned the honour of the Government.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman said that it involved the honour of the Government.


William Pugsley: I was careful to state that I did not make any charge against the Government. I was careful to state I had received this information in New York from a gentleman in whose word I placed confidence, a gentleman of the highest respectability; but that, so far as I was concerned, I did not know whether the statement were correct. I was careful to say I made no charge against the Government or against the minister.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What, in the opinion of the Solicitor General, is the meaning of the word " railway " in line 7 of section 7 of the contract? The hon. gentleman has told us that the word " work " means the whole railway. What would be the definition of the word " railway "; would it be the same definition as is contained in the general Railway Act?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the general Railway Act applies at all. I say . 117
that the word " railway " has no definition in this Act, and that is the complaint I make. What the hon. gentleman asks me to do now is to fill up the blank in the Act, which the Government he supported should have filled up by direct legislation.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: As a member of the House I was asking the Solicitor General what in his opinion was the meaning of the word " railway."


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I should be called upon across the floor to give a definition of " railway " or any other thing. What I say is that the definition of " railway " and of " completed railway " should have been made in the Act itself, beyond all peradventure.


Wilfrid Laurier: It was.


Arthur Meighen: It was not made as to " completed railway."


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Where is the definition?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will tell you.


Arthur Meighen: There is no definition of a completed railway or what constitutes the completeness of a railway, and that is the point my hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) has in mind. What constitutes the completion of a railway is not defined in this legislation, and it ought to have been.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The point is, what is really the meaning of the word " railway." Section 7 says:
The work must be under the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of the chief engineer appointed by the Government and the chief engineer of the company.
The Solicitor General says the word "work" means the whole railway, and I now ask him the definition of the word "railway"?
Mr. MEIGHEN That is to say, is the railway complete until there are shops and the like of that?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am not asking that; I am asking the Solicitor General for .a definition of the word "railway" as he understands it in this contract; it must have some meaning.
Mr. MEIGHEN; I do not propose to commit myself to a definition, because, in the first place, it would do no good to do so. There was a time when it would do good, and that time was



overlooked by the Government which the hon. gentleman supported. It will now have to be submitted to another tribunal.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would the Solicitor General say, as Solicitor General, that the word "railway" would not mean:
"Any railway which the company had authority to construct or operate, including all branches, sidings, stations, depots, wharves, rolling stock, equipment, stores, property real and personal, and works connected therewith, and also any railways, bridges, tunnels or other structure which the company is authorized to construct."


Arthur Meighen: That is so easy that I really cannot help answering it. In my opinion, "work" does not include rolling stock at all, because we have nothing to do with rolling stock; the company has to supply that. The hon. gentleman's definition is wrong, whatever other definition may be right.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would it mean all the stations of the road?


Arthur Meighen: It would mean stations of the railway, of course. It might not mean all the stations.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would not the terminal stations be the stations of the railway?


Arthur Meighen: They might and they might not. That is to be decided.


Francis Cochrane: What the hon. gentleman is driving at is this: there is a station for the company to go into at Quebec just as there is at Winnipeg.


William Pugsley: I shall be very brief in explaining to my hon. friend why I think the Grand Trunk Pacific were willing, when Mr. Hays was living, and would be willing to-day, to make the arrangement about which I spoke. The result would be, to begin with, that they would get their operating expenses. Then they would be developing traffic which in the future would be for the benefit of the country served by that railway. While operating, they would be at the same time postponing the period when they would be obliged to begin to pay interest. My hon. friend must see that. Therefore it would be very much more favourable for the company to take sections, and even the whole line before it was finally completed than it would be to enter into a lease under which their obligations to pay rent would begin at a certain time. The company might be willing to make the

arrangement of which I spoke and which they expressed themselves formerly as willing to make, while they would not be willing to enter into a lease for an uncompleted road, under which, as I have said, the term for payment of interest would begin to run. The best way to find out is to ask them if they are now willing to carry out the proposed agreement.


Mr. OLIVER:: The discussion so far has been in regard to the eastern end of the Grand Trunk Pacific enterprise. It strikes me that the western end is more important, and I wish to call the attention of the House for a few minutesi to the effect of action that may be taken under this resolution. The resolution contemplates the taking over by the Government of the portion of the Grand Trunk Pacific line from Lake Superior junction to Fort William, with the terminals. That piece of line is necessary to give the Grand Trunk Pacific system, measurably gridironing the three prairie provinces and British Columbia, a competitive outlet to lake navigation. If the Government takes action under this resolution and deprives the Grand Trunk Pacific of that access to lake navigation, it will be prejudicing in large measure the operations of the company throughout the three prairie provinces and British Columbia.


Francis Cochrane: But they would have to get connection from Winnipeg to Lake Superior junction, supposing the arrangement were carried out. They would need to enter into a contract for that.


Frank Oliver: Yes. I will reach the point that my hon. friend has in mind a little later on.
At the present time the Grand Trunk Pacific has a railway system in large measure covering the four western provinces, which system is dependent for its commercial success, in larger measure than on any o.theT factor, on having independent access on competitive terms to the navigation of the Great Lakes. They have that connection now under some arrangement-I do not know what it is- with the Government, covering that part of the line from Winnipeg to Lake Superior junction, and then by the use oi this brandh which is- their own. I am compelled to understand, from the terms of this resolution, and more particularly from the expressions of the Solicitor General in regard to it, that it is the deliberate intention of the Government under this legislation to deprive the Grand

Trunk Pacific system of that access to lake Superior, which is an absolute necessity to its successful business operation. The Government proposes to take over this section of the line, which is the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific, with its terminals, with the elevators, with all the port facilities which have 'been established there by the Grand Trunk Pacific at the cost of that railway, to aid in the successful operation of those thousands of miles of line in the Prairie Provinces and the Pacific province. I do not imagine that the House understands the stupendous character of the proposal before it. My hon. friend the Solicitor General, if I heard him correctly, spoke of the necessity, by this legislation, of taking over the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific-of expropriating-


Arthur Meighen: No, I did not.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member used the word "expropriate."


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I did; but the hon. member has never been unfair to me before, and he does not mean to be now. What I said was that if we had to operate the road, then we had to lease or acquire, and that we desired the power to acquire, because it might otherwise be impossible for us to make an advantageous lease.


Frank Oliver: Exactly. My hon. friend used the word "expropriate" and also the word "weapon." The Government proposes to use this as a weapon in dealing with the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Arthur Meighen: Why should it not?


Frank Oliver: I understand there is an intention on the part of the Government to use this agreement as a weapon to do what?


Arthur Meighen: To get a fair bargain.


Frank Oliver: As a weapon to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to submit to a rearrangement of their agreement in regard to the eastern division of the Transcontinental.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Frank Oliver: That is the only purpose there could be in using this arrangement as a weapon. I am not interested particularly in whether or not the Government takes the Grand Trunk Pacific by the throat and uses this agreement as a weapon to deprive it of the possibility of operating properly its system in the prairie provinces and the Pacific province. That 1171
is a matter of Government policy; and, if the Government sees fit to adopt that policy, that is for the Government to consider. What I am interested in is this: the Grand Trunk Pacific project was begun for the especial purpose of giving Western Canada railway development and railway competition, And my hon. friends propose by this means to take into their hands the power to deprive the Prairie Provinces and British Columbia of the possibility of their enjoying that competition in railway facilities that was the purpose of the establishment of the enterprise. If the Government of the day actually does as they have taken power to do, how is the Grand Trunk Pacific to carry on its business as a competitor with the other two railway systems of the West, both of which not only have access to the waters of Lake Superior, but also have, or shortly will have, all-rail connection with the East? If they 'take the control they have arranged to take here, they break, the Grand-Trunk Pacific enterprise; and that, I -am bound to believe,-is their deliberate intention. As to the use of the Bill to be founded upon this resolution as a weapon to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to enter into an agreement as to operating the eastern section of the railway on unfair terms-


Arthur Meighen: It is not that at all.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will have to admit that, or he used the word inadvisedly.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is misquoting me. I said not to affect in any way the operating of the eastern division. If they are ready to operate the eastern division, we are only too ready to let them. If they refuse to operate, where is their eastern outlet that my hon. friend is ' so much afraid of?


Frank Oliver: I do not think it would be profitable for my hon. friend and myself to argue about the meaning of the terms he used. There is no question about the use of the term; there is no question about the connection in which he used it. I am, therefore, entitled to put my construction upon the purpose he had in the use of these terms, as he is at liberty to put such construction on what I say.


Arthur Meighen: So long as you quote correctly what I said.


Frank Oliver: And the hon. gentleman will not deny-he cannot deny, for Hansard

will show it-that he used the word " expropriate," and the word " weapon."


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear; but not in the way the hon. gentleman says I did.


Frank Oliver: That is the matter that I say it is not profitable for my hon. friend and myself to discuss.


John Hampden Burnham: Who owns it now?


Frank Oliver: Owns what now?


John Hampden Burnham: The property to be expropriated?


Frank Oliver: The Grand Trunk Pacific. It is important that there should be railway competition, and that there should be a competitive outlet for the Grand Trunk Pacific system, not only to the Lakes, but also to tidewater; and it is in regard to the terms upon which the Grand
11 p.m. Trunk Pacific shall secure access to tidewater that this resolution is brought forward-as my hon. friend says-as a "weapon" to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific-he did not use the word "compel"; I am using it-to agree to something that the Government is not entitled, on the merits of the case, to require them to agree to. Now, as to the right of the Government to claim breach of faith on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific-and that is really the burden of my hon. friend's argument-as to the merits of the case between the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific concerning the eastern outlet at tidewater, let me give my view of the case concerning where the responsibility rests.
The Grand Trunk Pacific project was finally agreed to in April, 1904. From 1904 until 1911 construction was pushed on that road. In October, 1911, if my memory is correct, a return, placed on the table of the House by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, gave the information that at that time an expenditure of approximately $100,000,000 had been made, and that the road was within, I think, 15 per cent of being completed-it was 85 per cent completed. Details were given showing so much grading, bridging, track laying and other things to be done. The cost had been $100,000,000, approximately, and the time occupied from the very beginning of the enterprise was seven years.


Arthur Meighen: I have never seen that return.


Frank Oliver: The return was laid on the table, and there was a long argument in Parliament about it. The return was
CMr. Oliver.]
brought down and the figures given, for the purpose of affecting the election in South Renfrew, which resulted in the return of my hon. friend (Mr. Graham).


Francis Cochrane: I would like to see my hon. friend produce that return.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend surely does not deny that he brought down a return.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think I ever brought down a return showing an expenditure of $100,000,000 at that time.


Frank Oliver: Was the expenditure less or more?


Francis Cochrane: It was more.


Frank Oliver: How much more?


Francis Cochrane: I am not prepared to say.


Frank Oliver: I may be wrong as to the amount. But for the purposes of the argument I am going to make it would be better if the amount were larger than $100,000,000. Now, let me repeat in seven years the road was 85 per cent completed, and the cost was approximately a hundred millions.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that the return stated that it was 85 per cent completed?


Frank Oliver: That is my understanding of the return.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. gentleman will have to revise that understanding.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps so. I give the figures as approximate and may be a little in error, but approximately, that was the condition. Now, it is three and a half years since 1911, and the expenditure on the Transcontinental has gone up to something like-should I be wrong if I said, $150,000,000?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: Has it gone over that?


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman include interest?


Frank Oliver: I include anything the hon. gentleman includes. I take it any way he figures it. How does he figure it out?


Arthur Meighen: That depends on the basis on which the hon. gentleman wishes it figured out. Does he include interest?


Frank Oliver: Yes, anything the hon. gentleman likes.


Arthur Meighen: The expenditure is over $170,000,000.


Frank Oliver: We will say it was $170,000,000 at December 31, 1914, and that it was $105,000,000 or $110 000,000 at the 1st of October, 1911-and it was no more than that. The road was 85 per cent completed then, and it is not completed yet.


Arthur Meighen: It was not 85 per cent completed then.


Frank Oliver: I said it was. I may be a little in error. Will my hon. friend say how much it was?


Arthur Meighen: It was not nearly that. The hon. gentleman's figures show it was not nearly that.


Mr. HANNA:: The hon. member for South Renfrew put it at 55 per cent last year in the discussion of the' Transcontinental-55 per cent completed when this Government took office.


Frank Oliver: I do not know what the
hon. member for South Renfrew said.


George Perry Graham: Neither does the hon.
member.


Frank Oliver: I am taking the return
submitted by the Minister of Railways when the hon. member for South Renfrew was not in the House. What I wanted to say was that the railway was certainly more than 75 per cent completed in the fall of 1911, and since that time this Government has spent upon the railroad more than one-half as much as was spent in the seven years previously, and if the railroad is not completed now, it is the fault of this Government, which has squandered money in such stupendous volume without putting it to proper use. If the Goverment of the day had spent the money which they have spent as the Government which preceded them spent the money, that they spent, there would be no dispute to-day as to whether or not the Transcontinental was ready for operation, The Grand Trunk Pacific would not have a leg to stand on in arguing that they were under no obligation to take over the road. My hon. friend would not be in the position that, by an Act of this Parliament, he must take the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific to use it as a weapon to compel the company to agree to take over the road when it has not been completed. There is no reason why this Transcontinental railroad is not completed at this date,
except the policy of the Government of the day.


Francis Cochrane: Who let the contracts for the road?


George Perry Graham: The late Government did not let any contracts for the changes in Quebec.


Francis Cochrane: I know you did not,
and you did not do any work there; that is more.


Frank Oliver: It does not make any difference who let the contracts. Now that my hon. friend has mentioned it all the contracts were let before the present Government came into power, and if they did not see that these contracts were fulfilled as they ought to have been, it was not the fault of the Government that let the contracts.


Francis Cochrane: The contracts in
Quebec were let to be finished in 1907, and they were not finished when we came into power.


Frank Oliver: That is right, they are not finished yet, so that my hon. friend is not gaining anything in the race at all.


Francis Cochrane: That may be your
opinion.


Frank Oliver: The fact that the road is not completed to-day is not because there has not been time enough or because there has not been money enough spent, but because it has not been the policy of this Government to carry that project to successful and satisfactory completion. It has been the settled and fixed policy of this Government to prevent the realization of the expectations of railroad competition throughout Canada, and particularly throughout Western Canada, as the result of the completion of the Grand Trunk Pacific enterprise, that was the very reason for its inception. That is absolutely in line with the policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite from the day that the project was first brought into Parliament. They opposed it in 1903 and in 1904 they fought the project until the snow flew in October-from spring until fall. From that day to this they have done everything in season and out of season, by word of mouth but still more by executive action, to prevent the successful completion of this project and the realization of the expectations resulting from it. Here we have the climax. The rails are laid from end to end of the road. There is no reason

why the terminals should not have progressed as the building of the road progressed; but we find the road laid and the terminals still to be built and our hon. friends contend that the company should take over the road without the terminals being completed! The Minister of Railways says: Why, they can get down to tide water, they can use the Canadian Pacific railway station, they can transact their business. My friend the Solicitor General was very sarcastic about the amount of business there was for them to transact. Perhaps there is not very much business for them to transact, perhaps they could transact their business under the circumstances that exist at the present time. But I ask my hon. friend if he expects that a company that raises as many millions of dollars of capital for expenditure in this country as the Grand Trunk Pacific has done, is going to enter into an agreement that makes it responsible for large payments in regard to its enterprise, if the terms of the agreement have not been completed in regard to terminals and the company is expected to transact its business with such facilities as are offered to it at Quebec today. I say no, that is not reasonable.
So that there may be no question as to what the condition of the railroad was as to completion on the 31st of December, 1911, I would cite the return submitted to Parliament by the Minister of Railways as follows:
Recapitulation: Length, 1,804.7 iniles froan Moncton to Winnipeg.
Grading completed, 1,587.7 miles, or 76 per cent in 21 contracts.
Track laid, 1,378.7 miles and 278 miles in sidings.
Telegraph lines, 892 iniles.
Bridges, 82 per cent.
That was the condition of construction at that time.


Robert Rogers: It is a long way from 85 per cent.


Frank Oliver: But it is more than 75 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: And that only covers part of the railway.


Frank Oliver: I do not know. My hon. friend will have to settle that with the Minister of Railways, who saw fit to lay on the table of the House a certain statement in regard to the construction of that railroad.
I have given the House the figures, and my argument is that, taking over the road in that state of completion, the Government has not used due diligence in the years that
I Mr. Oliver.]
have followed in the matter of the expenditures they have made; and if there is a question to-day as to the (Grand Trunk Pacific taking the road over, the fault lies with this Government in carrying on its policy of hostility to the Grand Trunk Pacific projiect, and hostility to the principle of railway competition in Western Canada.


Francis Cochrane: One of the last contracts on the line to be finished was the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is complaining about what occurred under his own Administration.


Francis Cochrane: Oh no.


Frank Oliver: The Government must
shoulder responsibility for its own administration. We are charged with having been responsible for the past expenditure on the Grand Trunk Pacific. Are we to be also charged with the delay in its completion? I say that we are not chargeable either for the large expenditure that has taken place'under the hon. minister, or for the delay in the completion of the work. The Government is surely a government that is responsible for what it-does. Surely the men who went out of office in 1911 are not responsible for what the Government of the day is doing in 1915. I say that this proposed legislation is simply carrying out the policy that has been uniformly followed by the party now in power from the inception of this enterprise to the present-a policy of hostility to the success of the enterprise and hostility to the principle of railway competition in Western Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: In introducing the resolution I understood the Minister of Railways to say that it was introduced for the purpose of authorizing the Government to operate the road from Winnipeg to Quebec. I find nothing at all in this resolution to that effect. This resolution applies simply to the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway from Fort William to Superior Junction. There is nothing at all about operating the road.


Francis Cochrane: Perhaps I did not
express myself very clearly. The object is to operate more effectually the whole system. If we were shut off from operating between Fort Willliam and Superior Junction it would be very bad as we should be shut off from getting to the water and during navigation, we should have to haul the wheat by rail all the way. The idea

is to pay for the operation out of consolidated revenue.


Wilfrid Laurier: I only want
to understand exactly where we are. What is the ultimate object of the Government I do not know, but I see that they intend to operate the road. So far so good, or rather so bad. But this resolution is simply to authorize the Government to acquire what now belongs to the Grand Trunk Pacific from Fort William to Superior Junction.


Arthur Meighen: The right hon. gentleman will recall that almost exactly a year ago power was given to the Government to operate the Transcontinental. This only enables us more effectually to operate it.


George Perry Graham: That is on the statute
book now?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand where we are now. Do the words " or otherwise acquire " in the resolution cover expropriation if that may be necessary?


Arthur Meighen: I think they are wide
enough to include that. We might acquire it without expropriation, of course, were it necessary to acquire it at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
meaning of " or of any other company ?


Arthur Meighen: That applies to "terminal facilities	and	accommodation
works." The words are meant to cover the event of such terminal facilities or accommodation works not being under the direct title of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, but of a subsidiary company.


Wilfrid Laurier: What works
of any other company are intended to be covered by these words?


Arthur Meighen: I am not quite sure just what works the term	accommodation
works" covers, but that is the phrase usually used in connection with a railway. It is necessary to use those words, I think, in order to get the full effect. The words are in the statutes, and consequently have a judicial meaning. They would mean whatever the court has hitherto decided they do mean. That is what they would mean in this legislation. I presume it would include stations.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is very vague. I have been a pretty long time in Parliament, but this is the first time I have heard of "accommodation works.


Arthur Meighen: Probably repair shops would be included.


Wilfrid Laurier: Belonging to whom?


Arthur Meighen: Either to the Grand Trunk Pacific, or they may have them under the title of a subsidiary company.


George Perry Graham: We want to be all straight, so that the next time we have a discussion of this question we shall have the figures right. The Minister of Railways insisted that over $100,000,000 had been expended up to the time this Government came into power. I have the figures before me, and if the minister will look up the figures down to March 17, 1911, he will see that it is very much under $100,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: About $95,000,000, but then there was the expenditure of about eight months more to be added to that.


George Perry Graham: The minister said it was much over $100,000,000, but this statement shows that the figures given by my hon. friend Mr. Oliver to-night are approximately correct. After that there was about $50,000,000 expended.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The statement in Hansard says $113,000,000.


Francis Cochrane: We only gave a statement of what was actually paid out. My hon. friend owed a great deal of money.


George Perry Graham: I am taking the figures given to-night. There is a statement here, made by Mr. Bell, I suppose.


Arthur Meighen: We figured that proportioned over the year it would be about $113,000,000. As the minister has pointed out we have had to pay off millions that the late Government owed, and there are millions under litigation to-day, which we cannot avoid, but as to the disposal of which or including it in the cost of constitution the agreement is silent.


George Perry Graham: The amounts that you are obligated to pay are not in this statement at all.


Arthur Meighen: I know that, but it is surely unfair to argue that we have expended on the road since the difference between that and the amount now expended. The hon. gentlemen became obligated to pay out a certain sum of money but they had not paid it.


George Perry Graham: The same argument would apply to my 'hon. friend. This Government is obligated to payments that they have not yet paid, and these payments will come in another statement as well.


Francis Cochrane: And they do not include interest.


George Perry Graham: We were not discussing interest; that is a small matter. My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) was justified in approximating these figures on the statement which he had in his hand. If we cannot depend on statements coming from the Government, as we found to-night we could not, how are we to make our calculations?


Arthur Meighen: The statements are absolutely right. I thought that what the hon. member for Edmonton was trying to present was so absurd that it would not appeal to the hon. member for Renfrew. The former Government paid out $113,000,000, but they were obligated to pay large sums in addition which were not settled but which were in dispute. The interest was not included, but the hon. member for Edmonton includes interest in one case and forgets to include it in the other.


George Perry Graham: You left it for my hon. friend to put in interest or leave it out, and he put it in.


Arthur Meighen: I put it in at one end. but I put it in at the other also, and the hon. gentleman should have done the same.


George Perry Graham: If this statement is correct, it does appeal to the hon. member for Renfrew and substantiates my hon. friend from Edmonton absolutely in what he' said.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is meant by this:
For all the purposes of section 9 of the said Act, may provide, by purchase, lease or otherwise, rolling stock and equipment, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and such other company, shall each be authorized on its part to deal accordingly with the said line of railway or terminal facilities and accommodation works as the case may be.


Arthur Meighen: Section 9 of the old Act reads as follows:
The construction of the eastern division and the operation thereof until completed and leased to the company pursuant to the provisions of the agreement shall be under the charge and control of three commissioners, to be appointed by the Governor in Council.

It will be observed that the clause gives power to the Commission during construction to operate. Last year section 9 was amended, the amendment giving the minister power to operate the road not only during construction but until actually leased and taken over. That is the condition of section 9 now. Therefore, the resolution reads that to fulfil these requirements he may purchase whatever rolling stock may be necessary.


The CHAIRMAN (reading) :: That subsections 2, 3, 4, 6 and 6 of section 361 of the Railway Act, and section 29, chapter 122 of the statutes of 1903, shall not apply to any such lease or to anything done under the preceding provision.


George Perry Graham: That means that they shall not be referred to the Board of Railway Commissioners or approved by them.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it relieves the Government of the necessity, when making this lease with the company, of having the lease approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


George Perry Graham: There is a reference to section 29, of chapter 122, of the statutes of 1903.


Wilfrid Laurier: That means that you cannot amalgamate with another company.


Arthur Meighen: Section 29, chapter 122,
3 Edward VII, is the section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company incorporation charter which provides the terms under which they may enter into an amalgamation or lease. This section corresponds to section 361 of the Railway Act, and in order to carry out the effect of the exception as to the applicability of subsections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the section, we have also to except section 29.


George Perry Graham: You give the companies the power to amalgamate under these conditions?


Arthur Meighen: The Act does.


Frank Oliver: I want to say one further word in line with what I said before. In so far as the operations of the main line of the transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Quebec is concerned, the Government built that line under an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and if they cannot come to an understanding with the Grand Trunk Pacific as to-the operation of it, I would certainly think they had a right to withhold it from the

Grand Trunk Pacific and to operate it in any way they please. But I want to point out that the Grand Trunk Pacific have built this section of 150 or 200 miles from Superior junction to Fort William, they have established terminals at Fort William at enormous expense, and they have done this in the full expectation that they were to have the use temporarily of the main line from Winnipeg to Superior junction, so that they could carry on their business until such time as the line from Quebec to Moncton was finished.


Francis Cochrane: There is nothing in the Act to say that.


Frank Oliver: There is nothing in the Act; I quite appreciate that; but I am talking of this as a business proposition. The Grand Trunk Pacific built that line and went to the expense with that belief and that understanding, and this Government are deliberately undertaking to take from the Grand Trunk Pacific that property which they paid for with the moneys of their bondholders for the purpose of contributing to the success of their main enterprise. There is only one word for that action, and that word is robbery-robbery not in the public interest, but in the interest of the policy of this Government, in the interest of monopoly in transportation.	*


Robert Rogers: I would not speak to-night were it not for the strong language used by my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), and used, though in a milder form, by other hon. gentlemen on his side of the House. We were told to-night that the Transcontinental railway was of national interest to the people of Canada when my right hon. friend introduced the Bill for its construction in 1903, and that that national interest has grown day by day from that hour to the present, by reason of the fact that the Government, as representing the people, have invested an enormous sum of money in the construction of this railway. In the judgment of the Government engineer, the railway is now completed, and the time has arrived when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should carry out the terms of the contract it made with the Government in 1904, and operate the railway. I shall not discuss the details of the cost of this railway, nor shall I enter into various other questions which have been raised to-night, but I do want to correct, a false impression which seems to exist in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite as to the attitude of this Government towards
the Transcontinental railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. I am sure my right hon. friend, and every member on his side of the House, will agree with me that no Government could have adopted a child such as we adopted, in the form of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental, and have been more loyal to it than we have been since we came to power. We are loyal to it by reason of the fact that the Canadian people, whom we represent in this Parliament, have such a large investment in that great undertaking, and we believe that the day has now come when the company should carry out its bargain and operate the line from Winnipeg to Moncton. We feel that in the interests of the people of Canada we must press upon the company to carry out their contract, which up to the present they have failed to do. The Grand Trunk Pacific line from Superior Junction to Fort William and Port Arthur is an essential link in the chain of the Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Moncton, and it is inseparably connected with that enterprise. The purpose of the resolution we are now considering is to take power, so that in the event of the Grand Trunk Pacific failing to carry out its agreement we can operate in some form or other that particular link in the chain, which, as I have said, is so essential to the success of the entire scheme.
Let me say most emphatically that it is not the intention of the Government, nor will it be the policy of the Government, to in any way hamper the trade of Western Canada by any action we may take under this resolution. Neither is it the purpose nor desire of the Government to in any way hamper the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific or to in any way interfere with any vested right, or with any interest they have, so long as they deal fairly, and I am satisfied from what I know of the President of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, that the company is disposed to deal fairly. In view of all that has taken place, in view of the enormous cost of the railway,-and I shall not enter now into the question as to who is to blame for that,-while consideration should be given to the objections of the Grand Trunk Railway, there can be no question about the advisability of providing for the operation of this particular line at the present time. The purpose of this resolution is only to ensure that if the Government is obliged to operate the whole line as it is now completed, the Government shall have the necessary power to be able to operate the line from Superior Junction to

Fort William. In so doing, it is not our desire to injure in any way, or to hamper in any way, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Railway Company. It is not correct for hon. gentlemen to say that we bring forward this resolution with a view to hostile action against the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk. The Government have no such thought, and I can assure the House and the country that the Government will continue in the future as in the past to treat this enterprise the same as it has treated all other enterprises, namely, in a spirit of fairness and generosity, which will be creditable to the Government and satisfactory to the people of the Dominion.


Frank Oliver: I must congratulate the
Government on the statement made by the Minister of Public Works. He will, of course, understand that if we have been led into error it was by reason of the expressions used by his colleague, the Solicitor General, who spoke of this legislation as a weapon which was to be used to compel an agreement by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. But while we are all more than pleased with the conciliatory words of the Minister of Public Works, I want to put it to him and to the House: What is going to happen to the people of the Prairie Provinces and of British Columbia, who depend on the Grand Trunk Pacific railway facilities in these provinces, if and when the Government act under the authority they now take?


Francis Cochrane: Do you think any
government would be allowed to stay in power ten minutes which would not take all the freight that was offered at Winnipeg, and all the freight offered by the Grand Trunk in the East, and move it over that line. The trouble about operating that line will be to get enough freight for it. There is no government that would be foolish enough to attempt for a minute any other policy.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member has
more faith in governments than I have.


Arthur Meighen: He has more reason to.


Francis Cochrane: The hon. member has more experience than I have had.


Frank Oliver: That may be the reason, but I must say that the experience we have had at the hands of this Government would not lead to his conclusion by any means. If we are to have so much faith in the

Government which is going to use this legislation as a weapon against the company, how sure are we that the Government will not continue to use this control of the traffic conditions as a weapon also to compel some other concession. We are not interested in the Grand Trunk Pacific, but we are interested in the people of the West; we are interested in their getting railway facilities and under the best possible circumstances. We are interested in the maintenance of effective railway competition, and certainly we look with very great disfavour upon a condition of affairs that will cut off from the thousands of miles of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway in those Prairie Provinces access to lake navigation on their own lines under their own conditions. As a western man, I would certainly, under those circumstances, seeing that we have the competition of two other roads from the prairies to the lakes, rather trust the Grand Trunk Pacific than this Government. I will not suggest this, but I think it will suggest itself to the minds of a great many people that, if this Government has friends among the railway system of Canada, and if it should be particularly well-disposed towards one or the other or both of the other railway systems in the West, it would be a very easy matter for the Government so to handle its control of this connection between lake Superior and Winnipeg to throw the traffic to those other systems. Who thinks the Government would not do that? I certainly do not, and I think there are very few people in the Northwest who would believe the Government would not do it.


John Hampden Burnham: Would it not be time to complain when the Government does it?


Frank Oliver: No, it would be too late
then. I am putting my protest in here and now, at the time when the Government is asking for the authority and power. If the Government takes that power, it takes it in the face of the -naming that I have given, and it will certa: uly have to account to the people in the Northwest for the action it proposes to take.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Is not this section from Winnipeg to lake Superior Junction still in the hands of the Government?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Wright: Until that section is taken over by the Grand Trunk Pacific, they cannot run over their own line to lake Superior.


Frank Oliver: No.


William Wright: Therefore the piece of
road from Winnipeg to lake Superior is practically valueless to the Grand Trunk Pacific until they get their lease. Until such time as they complete the contract, they are certainly in no better position than they will be if the Government keeps control of it.


Frank Oliver: That is perfectly true. The Government owns the line from Winnipeg to lake Superior Junction, and the Government can to-day cut the Grand Trunk Pacific off from the operation of that line when the temporary lease that they have at present runs out.


Francis Cochrane: They want to give it up now.


Frank Oliver: I have very grave doubts.


Francis Cochrane: Grave doubts about
my statement?


Frank Oliver: About their wishing to
give it up.


Francis Cochrane: I make the emphatic statement that they do wish to give it up. Now contradict my statement.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry to have been
thought to be discourteous to the minister. Certainly I did not wish to be so, and I wish to accept unqualifiedly any statement he sees fit to make. I do not wish to be thought for a moment as doubting any statement he wishes to make; but as a matter of business operation, there is no doubt that, as long as the Grand Trunk Pacific wishes to operate from Winnipeg to Lake Superior Junction, the Government will be just as ill-advised to prevent them from operating as it will be to expropriate this piece of line. It is not the details of the question about which I am worrying; it is the general question that that company, which has thousands of miles throughout the Prairie Provinces, must have the right of access to lake Superior, or they cannot carry on business on a competitive basis with their competitors, and the people of the Northwest must necessarily suffer in traffic facilities as a consequence.


William Wright: If they wanted to get
access all they would require to do would be to take over the line.


Frank Oliver: They will take over the
line if this Government will complete it. The point is that the Government has not completed the line. The Government does not say that it has completed the line; but it is going to take legislation from this
Parliament which it will use as a weapon to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to take over the line without its being completed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. FRANK COCHRANE (Minister of Railways) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 119, to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Railways and Canals-National Transcontinental railway construction, $5,000,000.
['It is 20 feet or more for the whole 15 miles.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Thursday.\nThursday, April 1, 1915.']
Wilfrid Laurier: What is that for?


Francis Cochrane: I am not going back on my statement. We claim it is for construction, and there will be a lot of things to complete five years from now-yes, ten years from now.


Wilfrid Laurier: Thirty years from now.


Francis Cochrane: Fifty years from now.


Frank Oliver: The Solicitor General will surely be able to give us some explanation of this $5,000,000 for construction on the National- Transcontinental railway.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman does not understand it, I am afraid the case is hopeless for him.


Frank Oliver: The Solicitor General is arguing that the road was completed.


Arthur Meighen: The Solicitor General has the engineers behind him.


George Perry Graham: Quite a way behind him -$5,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: I have been able to quote exactly what the engineer said.


George Perry Graham: Will this $5,000,000 complete the road?


Francis Cochrane: It shows the following expenditures: grading, $1,702,750-


Wilfrid Laurier: Where?


Francis Cochrane: That is paying for grading under these contracts not settled.


Wilfrid Laurier: Work done?


Francis Cochrane: Yes; right of way, $575,000.	'


Wilfrid Laurier: Where?


Francis Cochrane: Well, a portion of it in the city of Winnipeg. We have a lawsuit there. We were sued for nearly $3,000,000 by one company; went to the Exchequer Court and they got judgment for $465,000. Another item is, building, $60,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Building what?


Francis Cochrane: The Champlain station -to finish it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will that be finished this year?


Francis Cochrane: Oh, yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: "Oh, yes"-I have heard that before; I heard it last year.


Francis Cochrane: I know, but I tell the right hon. gentleman it will be. There is $10,000 still due on bridges. Then, Quebec terminals, $2,500,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: What terminals?


Francis Cochrane: Joint terminals with the Canadian Pacific railway. The Trans-cona shops will take $30,000, and headquarters salaries and expenses, $40,000.


George Perry Graham: If the road is completed, headquarters expenses ought to stop.


Francis Cochrane: There are old disputes to which we fell heir, disputes seven, eight and nine years old, and it takes some time to straighten them out.


George Perry Graham: And do you need all these overhead expenses for that?


Francis Cochrane: That is part of it. My hon. friend knows well that we have to keep some of these engineers that supervise the work if we get into a lawsuit. This totals $5,000,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of this,
$2,500,000 goes to the Quebec terminals. Is that to be paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway for land?


Francis Cochrane: We take the land in our own right, and enter into a terminal agreement with them on practically the same basis as that on which the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific have entered into agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway in Winnipeg.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has the land been bought?


Francis Cochrane: Most of it, and that which has not been bought has been filed upon.


George Perry Graham: Not paid for?


Francis Cochrane: No. I think there is some land yet to be paid for along the shore up near the Champlain .12 m. market. And if I wanted to be critical and bring politics into this, in my opinion, we could take a good deal of credit for securing that land at so much lower price than was offered in the Exchequer Court-from Wolfe's Cove up to Champlain market. But I have avoided discussions of that kind.


Wilfrid Laurier: And if I wanted to be critical I would condemn the whole scheme. I understood from the minister's statement that he is buying that land in the right of the Government. My impression of the contract laid on the table last session was that the land was acquired by the Canadian Pacific Railway, the station was to be built by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and we have to pay 24 per cent upon the total. If that be so, the land must be acquired by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Francis Cochrane: No, they hold a certain quantity, but we buy the balance. I can show the right hon. gentleman the plan of the scheme.


Wilfrid Laurier: I saw the plans. Evidently my impression is wrong. Upon what is this expenditure of 24 per cent to the Canadian Pacific railway based?


Francis Cochrane: We pay 24 per cent on their land. Then we have a terminal agreement on a pro rata basis. They pay 24 per cent on our land, so "it is as broad as it is long.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand the arrangement to be that we pay 24 per cent on what is owned by the Cana-* dian Pacific Railway, then we buy the adjacent land and they use it with us? What do they pay?


Francis Cochrane: They have land to a certain amount, and on the value of that we pay 24 per cent. We buy land, and on the price that we pay they pay us 24 per cent.


George Perry Graham: Can the hon. gentleman tell us now when these works will be completed? Is $5,000,000 sufficient to complete the works on the line which are now incomplete?


Francis Cochrane: That will depend to some extent on how the contracts finished are settled. My hon. friend knows that there have been many disputes in the

carrying out of these contracts which have never been settled. We may have to go to the Exchequer Court on many of these. If we can settle these contracts for what they claim, we shall be able to complete the road and pay these besides. The right of way through Ontario has never been settled for. There is some right of way in the province of Quebec and. some in the province of New Brunswick that is not settled yet. We have made careful estimates of what we think would be just and fair and have based our Estimates on that.


George Perry Graham: There are shops, the station, the line from the Cap Rouge region down, and yards, etc., to be completed at Quebec. Will this amount complete all of these things?


Francis Cochrane: My engineer says so, but I put in the proviso that we are assuming we can settle the debts still owing on the old contracts at a fair figure. We have not done that yet.


George Perry Graham: Will the other work that we have been discussing to-night be finished this year?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


George Perry Graham: The Prime Minister, at a gathering at Quebec submitted plans for a tunnel and told them it was to be constructed. That is not included in this?


Francis Cochrane: Oh, no; that will cost from a million to a million and a half dollars.


George Perry Graham: It will cost two million dollars.


Francis Cochrane: Well, I know. As soon as the business of the road warrants us to going to that expense we will do it.


George Perry Graham: It is not intended this year, for what we may call the completion of these works, to include the tunnel?


Francis Cochrane: No, we could not this year.
Hudson Bay railway-construction of railway, terminals and elevators, $5,500,000.


Frank Oliver: What is for the railway and what for the terminals?
IVIr. COCHRANE:	For the railway,
$4,000,000, and for the terminals, $1,500,000.


George Perry Graham: That is this year's vote?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, and we have in the Supplementary Estimates a balance that we
overran our vote with the contractor for 1914-15.


Frank Oliver: What is the condition of the construction of the railway? How many miles of steel and grading, and how many miles of work has been done?


Francis Cochrane: The track has been laid to mile 214 from the Pas. The grading is done to mile 293, and the contractor has made arrangements to prosecute the grading between this point and mile 390 during the coming season. There remains the completion of grading to Port Nelson, mile 424, the track-laying from mile 214, and the ballasting, steel bridges and construction of buildings.


Frank Oliver: What is the condition of the two bridges across the Nelson river?


Francis Cochrane: One is now under contract, the other one is not completely worked out. The engineering difficulties have yet to be settled. They worked on the first bridge aoross the Nelson river, changed it. about and saved a lot of money.


Frank Oliver: Is the steel up to the first bridge ?


Francis Cochrane: No, it is about 24 miles from it, but they are laying it very fast.


Frank Oliver: Is the grading beyond the first bridge ?


Francis Cochrane: Oh yes, the bridge is to be in place by the 15th of September, so that the rails can* be laid as far as it is graded next fall, before the snow falls.


Frank Oliver: How soon is it expected that the railway will be completed to Port Nelson ?


Francis Cochrane: I think 1916, but the engineer thinks we will have hard work to do it.


George Perry Graham: He is right.


Frank Oliver: In the fall of 1916 ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Have any special difficulties developed in the way of handling the grading work ?


Francis Cochrane: No. To show you to what extent we have secured a straight line, as the crow flies the distance would be 406 miles, .and the length of the railway is 424 miles. For that distance, that is pretty good.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister make a statement in regard to the terminals ? I asked last year for a plan of the harbour improvements and the estimated cost and time for completion.


Francis Cochrane: We have not the plans here. The deepwater channel, about ^ mile wide, up the middle of the estuary, is separated from the shore by wide tidal fiats over which the water is from one to three feet deep at low water. It is proposed to construct the docks parallel to the deep water channel and distant about
1,000	feet therefrom, the intervening space being dredged about 20 feet at low water. The docks will consist of a cigar-shaped area surrounded with timber cribs and filled in with dredged material. The area will be about 500 feet wide and f (three quarters) mile long, in extreme dimensions. Along the face of the docks the steamer berths will be dredged to 30 feet depth. The elevator will be situated on the above described area, with adequate trackage. The docks will be connected with the shore by a series of crib piers (of laTge area to resist ice thrust) connected up with steel spans.
They consider this better than a solid pier.
Tlhe steamer Minto has been up twice to my knowledge right opposite where this dock will be, and that without any dredging. Of course the channel will have to be straightened in some places. The Minto went up, and there were no buoys there, and she got in and out again all right.


Frank Oliver: What is the draught of the Minto?


Francis Cochrane: Twenty feet. Of
course the chief difficulty is that the water from that channel in to the shore is low.


Frank Oliver: I understand there is a deep water channel a quarter of a mile wide being dredged.


Francis Cochrane: No, it is a natural channel.


Frank Oliver: What is the depth of it?


Francis Cochrane: The Minto has been up there and she draws twenty feet. I should not think the depth is much more than that.


Frank Oliver: Is it the intention to
dredge deeper. Ocean steamers draw thirty feet or more.


Francis Cochrane: Until the route has
been approved I do not think it will
be necessary to do more than straighten 
out the channel. Of course when the route has been settled, most decidedly we shall dredge. The boats can come in there now at high tide, and even at low tide.


Frank Oliver: How much dredging has been done up to the present?


Francis Cochrane: No dredging has been done. Owing to the long ocean voyage it was necessary to ship the dredge in a more or less " knocked down " condition. That is to say the heavy top hammer of "A" frame, cutterhead ladder, etc., were dismantled and stowed upon the deck. Also consideration of stowage on shipboard made it necessary to ship the pontoons and discharge pipes as separate plates and loose parts (shaped, and punched, with necessary forgings, etc., but not assembled.) It was intended that this assembly work should be done during the winter of 1913-14, so that dredge could be put at work during the summer of 1914. Owing to late arrival at the Bay, desertion of labour and loss of necessary tools in the ship wrecks, this work could not be proceeded with to advantage until the steamers arrived last September, and was not sufficiently advanced to permit of actual ivork before the close of river operations in the middle of October. The dredge was however tested and the machinery found to be in good working order. She was very late in getting in there last year. She started on July 3, but did not get in until August 14. This year we have our men and plant up there, and hope to make considerable progress.


Frank Oliver: Just how much dredging is it intended to do in order to reach deep water?


Francis Cochrane: For about 1,000 feet wide, and the length of the dock, which will be about half a mile.


Frank Oliver: The Government is undertaking now to dredge and straighten out the channel to deep water.


Francis Cochrane: We shall not do the dredging till the last. There will be no trouble in the boats getting in there. A boat drawing twenty feet can get in all right.


Frank Oliver: You were rather unfortunate the season before last in the arrival of vessels. How was it last year?


Francis Cochrane: I do not think we
were to blame in any sense of the word. We were unfortunate in not having enough lighters up there. I am satisfied that both

those boats that were lost were deliberately stranded. That is a strong statement to make, but I am sure I am right.


Frank Oliver: How many vessels went up?


Francis Cochrane: There were 37 passages through the Strait this last summer, notwithstanding the late season. By passages, I mean going and coming.


Frank Oliver: The first passage was
through at what time?


Francis Cochrane: The first steamer got to Port Nelson on August 14.


Frank Oliver: How does that compare with the year before?


Francis Cochrane: It was eight days later.


Frank Oliver: Is it a fact that it was not usual for vessels to get there before the beginning of August?


Francis Cochrane: We have been late two years, but I do not blame the route for that. Of course the great difficulty is when you have ice and fog together. With wireless telegraphy there is no danger from one of these conditions alone, as the boats can keep in touch with one another. The shores are high, and there is deep water right up to the shores. We found it paid last year to buy two sailing ships and load them with coal in England and bring them over. We delivered the coal and paid for the ships at a less cost than we could have taken the coal up. These ships had the largest draft of any of the boats up there-22 feet.


Frank Oliver: Those boats got in?


Francis Cochrane: They were towed in. The boats anchored just a little way out, and the coal was taken out of them and used on our own boats in the channel.


Frank Oliver: You brought it up to where the port is likely to be?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. .


Frank Oliver: How many miles of deep water are there inside of what you would call the port, that is, in the mouth of the river?


Francis Cochrane: Fifteen miles.


Frank Oliver: Does that 20 feet depth
hold for that distance?


Francis Cochrane: It would be more than that in some cases, but you can count on 20. Of course, if a boat with a 30-foot draft waited for high tide she could get in.


Frank Oliver: At Fort William there is a stretch of water seven or eight miles long and the water remains deep.


Francis Cochrane: That was dredged.


Frank Oliver: It was originally pretty deep. Does the 20-foot depth hold for the 15 miles up at Port Nelson?


Francis Cochrane: It is 20 feet or more for the whole 15 miles.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, April 1, 1915.