1919-11-04

DISPOSAL OF WHEAT CROP.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. B. McCOIG (Kent, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read a telegram which I was just going to send over to the leader of the Government (Sir George Foster). It is addressed to myself and reads as follows:
Chatham, Ont., Nov. 3/19.
.Millers refuse to huy wheat at Chatham. I have obligations to meet. Find out what action the Government purposes taking- to assist farmers in disposing of their crop.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It seems to me that this has to do with a question of policy. If the hon. member wishes to submit, a question, he should do so, although I have grave doubts whether he ought to take up a. matter of this kind on the Orders of the Day.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I am willing to abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but this is a matter of supreme importance to the people of the southwestern part of Ontario. As the telegram states, these people have many obligations to meet and they are unable to sell their wheat crop.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Will the hon. member put his question? He has not yet done so.


Archibald Blake McCoig: What action do the Government propose to take in view of the fact
that they have regulated the price of wheat and- the millers refuse to buy it? It seems to me that the Government should be able to give the producers of wheat some light on this question. They are tied up with their crops; they are unable to dispose of them, and they have obligations to meet.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has put his question; he may not discuss it.
Sir -GEORGE FOSTER: If the hon. member will send me the telegram and give me a chance to cogitate over it for a few moments, I will try to give him an answer.



PRIVILEGE-STATEMENT BY MR.


[Stage Direction]
PERSONNEL, OF SOfLI>IEBS' CIVIL REESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE.
On the Orders of the Day:
Air. W. S. AIIDDLEBRO (Chief Government Whip):: I rise to a question of privilege. I notice that in the Toronto Star of last evening Colonel Currie, in addressing a meeting of the United Veterans' League at Toronto, is reported as follows:
In .pointing out that the Government had no intention of having gratuities recommended, the Colonel said that the Whips were sent out to sound out each member as to his views on gratuity; and in the formation of the committee they made sure that there should he no member favourable to the scheme.
I should like to say that I did not, and so far as I am aware no Whip on the Government side did, sound any member with reference to his views on the question of granting gratuities. More than that, I did not, and so far as I know no Whip on this side of the House did, interview any member in any shape, manner or form as to whether that member was or was not in favour of gratuities. Therefore I say that the statement of Colonel Currie has no foundation whatever in fact. I should like to point out that in the formation of these committees the Opposition was consulted. There were seven members of the Opposition on that committee. These members were nominated by the Opposition; the Government had nothing to do with their membership on the committee beyond the acceptance of their names as submitted by the Opposition. I should like to point out also-because the article is more or less a reflection upon the personnel of the committee-that it is composed first., of its chairman, a cabinet minister, Hon. Mr. Calder; next, Colonel Hugh Clark, parliamentary secretary of the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Department; next of seven returned soldiers; next a member of the Op-

position an ex-cabinet minister who was for four years a prisoner in Germany; next of one man who had a son in the Plying Corps; next a man who had a son in the Medical Service at the front; next a man who had two sons overseas, one of whom made the supreme sacrifice, and next a man who had three sons overseas, all of whom made the supreme sacrifice. Of the remaining members of the committee not one has a son of military age. Some have no sons at all. So far as I am aware not a single member of the committee had a son of military age who was not overseas or in the firing line.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, permit me to say that as one of the members of that committee I was never approached by any whip in regard to my attitude on the question of gratuities, nor did I know that I was a member of the committee until my name appeared in the resolution adopted by the House.


Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth):: I may be allowed to say in this connection that the matter is entirely new to me. I was never approached directly or indirectly by a whip or anybody else; I did not know that I was being put upon the committee.


Mr. J. W. BRIEN (Essex South):: I concur in the remarks that have been made by those who have spoken before me. I was not approached by any one and I did not know that I was on the committee until the (personnel of the committee had been announced.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways) for the third reading of Bill No. 33, respecting the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway system, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Fielding, resumed from Monday, November 3.
Mr. LOUIS JOSEPH GAUTHIER (St. Hyaeinthe-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I have not taken much part in this discussion; I did not want to look as if I was desirous of embarrassing the Government by putting questions that they would not like to answer. But it has been my intention before this Bill is disposed of, to register my formal protest against the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway system under the present circumstances.

It is true that the question having been debated for quite a while it is very hard for any hon. member to offer new considerations. But I wish to express my personal views; I wish to take a stand for which I intend to be responsible before the people of the country.
It has been said that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. I say that it is the duty of the Government to enforce their decision with their majority, and I have no complaint to offer because the Government sees fit to press the passage of this Bill. They will be responsible for it; all that we on this side have to do is to offer fair criticism in order that the public may know that there is an Opposition in this House and that it is ready and willing to do its duty.
I submit, Sir, that the acquisition of the Grand Trunk by the Government is going to impose upon the Government a duty in connection with railway operation which will be more onerous to the Government than it was to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. That is the first point I wish to make.
It 'has been stated by the Drayton-Acworth Commission that $21,000,000 -had been paid to the shareholders by way of dividends which amount should have been invested for the maintenance and the equipment of the road. Since the submission oi that report it has been affirmed by experts that this amount of $21,000,000 has been increased to $51,000,000. I contend that if the Government- acquire the Grand Trunk Railway system they will be compelled to invest in that road $51,000,000 which ought to have been invested in it for maintenance and equipment, but which was divided among the shareholders. This puits a very onerous burden upon this country when the road is taken over by the Government.
But there is another point. On the amount of $180,000,000 which is to be submitted to arbitration the Grand Trunk Railway Company never paid a cent by way of dividends. It is stated that the stock representing this amount is valueless.
I am not a professor of the English language, but I would not be disposed to agree with this expression. This stock may be worthless as a dividend producing proposition; but it is not valueless, because the shareholders have invested $20,000,000 in this amount of $180,000,000. If the Government offers for arbitration this amount of $180,000,000 on which the Grand Trunk Railway system have never paid a cent of dividend, what will be the result? In this

country we have had experience in regard to arbitration in connection with a railway. There was in Canada a railway system known as the Canadian Northern, and when we decided to purchase 60,000 shares of that system, shares in, which not a cent had been invested, the people of this country were compelled to pay for that stock a price exceeding $10,000,000. This is the point I wish to make to the House and to the country. If in purchasing the shares of the Canadian Northern, in which shares not a cent has ever been invested, we have been compelled to pay more than $10,000,000, what will be the decision of the arbitrators when they put a value on $180,000,000 of stock in which $20,000,000 have been invested? It is a fair conjecture to say that we shall be compelled to pay twenty times the amount that we have paid for the Canadian Northern stock, and why not? The Grand Trunk Railway system is a system in operation; it is a going concern; $20,000,000 have been invested in that stock which has been worthless as a dividend producing proposition; but the value has been placed in that stock, and I am afraid that when the arbitration is over, we shall be compelled to pay to the new or to the old shareholders a sum equivalent to at least twenty times the amount that we have paid to the new or to the old shareholders of the Canadian Northern Railway system. For these two reasons I claim that the acquisition of the Grand Trunk by the Government of this country will impose upon the Government a burden more onerous to them than it has been to the Grand Trunk Railway system and its directors.
What has been the result of nationliza-tion in this country in connection with our railways? We own actually about 14,500 miles of railway, and the deficit for this year is nearly $18,000,000. If you add to these 14,500 miles of railway that we own, another 7,000 miles, you are going to face a deficit of at least one-third more than the deficit for the current year. So that you will have to pay first of all $51,000,000 to replace the amount that has not been invested by the Grand Trunk; then you are going to pay interest on the common stock which has never paid a cent of dividend, and you are going to load this country w'ith an annual deficit on our railways of at least $25,000,000 a year. This is no extravagant statement. In the United States, with its dense population, with manufactures in every city and town, with the immense increase that was made in
freight and passenger rates on the railways in that country-and it was claimed that last year the United States railways under government operation showed an increase of $865,000,000 in rates alone-what was the result? The result was a deficit of $850,000,000. With this immense country of Canada, thinly populated, with cities and towns situated far apart from one another, with the difficulties of operating our railroads during the winter season, is it possible to expect that we are going to make a success in operating these 22,000 miles of government-owned railways in this country when the American Government made a failure of their own railway administration during the time of the war when it was necessary to commandeer the railways in order to help the Americans to win the war, to transport as fast as possible soldiers, munitions and merchandise? Even after increasing the rates, the American Government have had to face a deficit, and they intend to give the railways back to their former owners. Yet this Government have decided to try again a policy that has proved a failure in the United States.	.
Many things have been said in regard to the Grand Trunk Railway system, and I wish to put my views and suggestions on Hansard. I hold no brief for anybody; I speak on my own responsibility, and I intend to do my duty as I think I should do it. In 1903, the Grand Trunk Railway system entered into an agreement with the Government of this country. The Canadian people were to build 1,450 miles of railway from Winnipeg to Moncton, thus opening up new areas for colonization, and this occurred at a time when two new provinces had been given their provincial rights. The old provinces were asking for better terms, and the Government of the day decided that, instead of giving them better terms in the-way of subsidies, they would open up the undeveloped parts of the old provinces in order that with their own finances, they might be able to colonize and develop the old provinces. The Transcontinental was-built, but it was understood that after a certain period of time the Grand Trunk Railway system would lease it at a certain rental. The Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Pacific branches started building the parts of the road that they were compelled to build. In 1911, there was a change of Government, and a commission was appointed, and the result was that the Transcontinental was degraded. We have paid for that commission more than $60,000 to depreciate property belonging to the peo-
1G74

pie of this country, and we have rewarded the two commissioners. What has been the result? The degrading of the Transcontinental was done without Consulting the Grand Trunk who were to pay the rental of the railway after it had been completed. The Grand Trunk made out a case so strong that the Government of the day decided that the lease that was to exist between the Grand Trunk and the Government of Canada should be cancelled, and the Government took over the Transcontinental. By the degrading of the Transcontinental the Government have prevented the Grand Trunk from making connections with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk being unable to meet their obligations, the Government have appointed the Minister of Railways as receiver for the Grand Trunk Pacific.
The Grand Trunk Pacific may foe looked at from a different angle, but the fact remains that this was an undertaking entered into in the interests of the country by the Government and a private company. If the Transcontinental has been degraded it is the fault of the Government and not of the Grand Trunk, because the company was no party to the degrading of the road. Without the connecting link of the Transcontinental between the West and the old Grand Trunk system it was impossible for the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate successfully. By degrading the Transcontinental the Government cut the system in two. Is it fair for the Government, after altering the conditions of the contract they entered into with a private company, after changing the conditions of operation, to say to the company: You. must sell your road to the Government, and must accept our terms. The bargain for the Grand Trunk Pacific was entered into by the company in good faith, and was carried out as well as they could. It is not their fault that the Transcontinental was degraded. You cannot charge the company with the war, which has altered economic conditions generally. The Government claims that the only remedy is to buy outright the stock of the Grand Trunk Railway system. Just consider our financial position, Mr. Speaker. We have deficits every year and have to call on the people to subscribe loans. We are floating a Victory Loan now, and expect to get at least 1500,000,000. That loan has not yet been subscribed, but already officials of the Government are stating publicly that after it is subscribed there will have to be another appeal to the people for subscriptions.
[Mr. Gauthier.!
Under such conditions is it fair to say to the people of this country: We are not going to cut down our expenditures or curtail our extravagance, but shall go on as before, and further, we are going to ask you not only to make up our annual deficits, but to buy a road which is unable to make both ends meet; -you must put up the money. Not only is the bargain unfair to the Grand Trunk system and onerous for the Government, but it is unfair, and this is my third" point, to the people of this country.
I want hon. gentlemen to remember when I speak of the Canadian Pacific that I hold no brief for that company, but there is this argument to offer. We are proud of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It is a wonderful railway organization, the greatest in the world. Does any one suppose that the Canadian Pacific railway, when the Canadian Government is its competitor, will foe able to maintain its system in that state of efficiency of which we are so proud to-day? Although the National Railway system is operated by an independent board we all know who is responsible for its administration. I am not here to discuss that board, but I say it is impossible for a government-owned system to be administered as a private-owned system would be. We shall have to secure traffic, and the government-owned system will encroach on the rates, will give greater facilities, and break through the traffic regulations of this country, and who will suffer by that? The Canadian Pacific, because to meet the competition of the government-owned system they will have to do what the government-owned system does. The result will be that the dividends of the Canadian Pacific will be cut down, and the efficiency of the road impaired, and who will suffer from that? The people of Canada. If the Government were really anxious to make an experiment in the nationalization of railways I would look with more favour on a project to acquire the Canadian Pacific. If the Government are really in favour of public ownership, let them take over all the railways in Canada so that there will be no unjust competition. Just have one system. I do not know that it would be a paying business, hut you would have to risk that. If the Government want to experiment in the nationalization of railways let them buy roads which are on a paying basis, and not simply roads that are bankrupt or about to fail. Why in the name of

everything that is holy should the Government pick up only the railways that are unable to meet their obligations, and leave alone the railways that are operating successfully? I cannot understand that. It may be that the money-makers who would like to buy the shares of the Canadian Pacific would have to buy them in the open market and would have to pay a much bigger price than for Canadian Northern or Grand Trunk stock, because the Canadian Pacific is a paying road. To take over the Canadian Pacific would be a more sound policy for the Government to pursue, but it is the Grand Trunk system that is going to he acquired.
I cannot help smiling when I hear or read in Hansard the arguments made from the Government benches that the Grand Trunk is required as a feeder or connecting link for the national system. Now a connecting link cannot pay better in the hands of the Government than in the hands of a private corporation. If it has proved a failure in the hands of private owners I wonder what will be its fate in the hands of a commission appointed by this Government, when it is acquired under our presept peculiar financial circumstances, and in view of the burdens which the Government of the country will have to shoulder. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have expressed my views on this subject not with any hope of influencing a single vote, hut rather to convince hon. members opposite if it be at all possible to do so, that there are more sides than one to a question and that every subject can be debated with perfect equanimity of mind and a sound and unbiased conscience.


Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly-and Verchferes):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that 1 would be derelict in my duty if, before the vote is taken, I did not make a nonpartisan and earnest appeal to the members on both sides of the House in an endeavour to save Canada from an agreement which in my opinion is fraught with possible catastrophe and national bankruptcy. In order to make myself perfectly clear in my opposition to the Bill now under discussion, I desire at the outset to enunciate the reasons which I intend to develop in the course of a few remarks I shall make on the subject. These reasons are: First, in my opinion the Bill embodies what I may term an amphibious project, which is not public ownership but which retains all the risks and disadvantages of public ownership, eliminating many important features and advantages appertaining to such policy; second, although I believe in public ownership in theory, and although in practice it might be a good policy in other spheres of action, yet experience teaches us that in railroad matters it has been and is bound to be a failure; third, even if public ownership of railroads were a successful policy, the finances of the country do not permit the expenditure involved in the proposed agreement; fourth, there are at least two alternatives which are better than the proposed agreement now before the House; fifth, the agreement in itself is bad and it should be amended or postponed for further information and more mature consideration; and, finally, public opinion does not demand this undertaking, on the contrary, it is protesting against the proposition.
Let us now briefly and dispassionately examine these six reasons, having in mind the fact that when each and every one of us entered Parliament he took a solemn oath to vote not for party purposes, but according to his conscience, and only in the best interests of Canada. I said, Sir, that this project was amphibious: ni chair ni poisson. It contains all the risks and disadvantages inherent in public ownership, but discards many of the essential features and advantages of that policy. I might have used a more modern and up-to-date expression created recently by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), who has largely piloted this Bill. I might have said " amphibiological." But, Mr. Speaker, as I am not speaking " in code," the word amphibious conveys adequately the idea I wish to express. The term "amphibious" is applied to animals or plants which can exist either in water or on dry land and which generally do not thrive to any marked degree of success in either element. Figuratively and economically speaking, it may be applied to a man or a policy having all the ear-marks of a well-defined character, but lacking many of its essential features. This amphibious character is very seldom a success; and it is always a failure when it embodies all the disadvantages of the policy it feigns and takes no cognizance of the advantages which attach to that policy. The ministers who piloted this Bill have made efforts to impress the House with the idea that the agreement embodies real public ownership of railroads, and I shall deal later with the danger of this policy. In the meantime let us examine the advantages of public ownership which are left out of this Bill. In the first place, according to the minis-

ters, the Grand Trunk will never be in our name; we shall never be the real proprietors. We may possess at a certain moment the majority of the stock, but the Grand Trunk Company will remain as a company and an entity. By not having the railroad under the name of the Canadian National Railways we deprive ourselves of a very great advantage in the shape of advertise- ' ment. It is true that the people will know that we have the controlling interest, but the road will still be run as the Grand Trunk railway and will not attract Canadian trade to the same extent as if it were known as part of the Canadian National railways. The second advantage, which is not embodied in the Bill, and which appertains to public ownership, is the fact that under this policy the state can enact uniform legislation favourable to its own railways and of great assistance towards their success. The Grand Trunk has something like two thousand miles of road in the United States. It controls thirty-three companies with stock amounting to some fifty-one million- dollars. These companies in the United States will escape our legislation and jurisdiction, with its benefits. Furthermore, of these two thousand miles both ends will be subject to foreign law, operated under the administration of the American railroads; and it is not likely that the American people will favour a railroad controlled by a foreign government and running in the United States in competition with American lines. Therefore these lines of the Grand Trunk which are at present running in the United States under a deficit will be further jeopardized by antagonism and unfriendly legislation. When we were discussing the resolution in committee, I raised the point that Canada, or His Majesty, could not own and operate railways in a foreign country because it is an absurdity in international law that the sovereign can be subject to the legislation and the laws of a foreign country. The Minister of the Interior who answered my question gave me two reasons. The first was that, although admitting the soundness of my argument in theory, the fact remained that the United States Government were operating railways in Canada. That was no answer at all because the United States Government does not operate any of its own railways in Canada. The New York Central and Delaware and Hudson are privately owned railways that have been taken temporarily by the Government of the United States for operation. There is no similarity between the fact that the United States Government is 	.
operating temporarily private-owned railways in Canada and the fact that we would go into the United States and operate our own railways. It makes all the difference in the world. If the New York Central or the Delaware and Hudson should violate the orders of the Canadian Railway Commission, or if by chance an accident should occur rendering either company liable in damages, -surely action would be properly instituted against the New York Central, or the Delaware and Hudson, and not -against the United States Government in view of the fact that it is not the United States Government which is operating these roads in its own name but that they are simply being operated for private companies.
But, says the minister, in his second answer: "We will not own the Grand Trunk railway lines in the United States but we will only own the majority of the stock." I admit that -legally and technically the contention of my hon. -friend is well founded but, although on this side of the House we were considered disloyal in 1911 because w-e wanted to enter into a trade agreement with the United States, I must say, Sir, that we d-o not relish the idea of the Dominion of Canada expressing the subordination of its will to a foreign power and to a government bureau of that foreign power. We believe we are right in our contention that the subordination of a private-owned company or corporation to the laws of a foreign government is not the same as the Government of Canada subordinating itself in any manner to the same power.
This operation by Canada of its railways in the United States -has another aspect which concerns the -friendly relations between Canada and the United States. It is well known that the acquisition by Japan of -a railway in Manchuria and the operation of that railway is looked upon with intense disfavour in China and may bring about trouble between the two nations. How will the 110 million people of the United States view the control by the Dominion of Canada of a company owning American territory approximately 2,000 miles in length and 60 feet in width in the States of New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois consisting of the right of way necessary to enable the Dominion of Canada to reach two of the seaports of New England, Portland and New London as well as the great city of Chicago. Will that make for friendly relations?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure it will.


Joseph Archambault: On the other hand it is most likely to entail most serious consequences. These lines of the Grand Trunk as it appears, are showing a deficit now that they are privately owned. What will happen if this agreement goes through? Is it not natural and logical to surmise that the Americans will feel rather chary about using our roads? They will certainly have the same disposition as we would towards a railway owned and operated by the United States in Canada. These lines will increase their deficit and the poor taxpayer will have to dig deeper into his pocket.
Here I come to a very serious consideration. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: What would happen in the case of war? There is only one answer. The United States would be entitled to, and would confiscate the 2,000 miles of line belonging to the Canadian Government, worth over $51,000,000, the country would suffer that loss and Canada would be in the absurd, the suicidal position of having her own railway used against her for purposes of war. There is an advantage in state-owned railways which is not embodied in this Bill. It has been repeated in the House before but I desire to bring the matter up again. By the British North America Act government-owned buildings and railways cannot be forced or obliged to pay one cent of municipal or school taxes. It is certain that whether the Bill is passed or not the school and municipal taxes which our lines in the United States are now paying will continue to be paid. We have had the assurance of the Minister of Railways that in Canada the municipalities will not lose these taxes. I understand that the amount is something like $1,000,000 in Canada and approximately the same in the United States, which means that tire taxpayers of Canada will have to pay, if this Bill is passed, $2,000,000 a year to municipalities which they would not have to pay if the policy of the Government was real public ownership.
Now even if we had all the advantages of public ownership I say this:	Although
I believe in public ownership in theory, and although in practice it might be good, in other spheres of action experience has taught us that public ownership of railways has been a failure. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has pointed out very clearly the paramount reason why, in theory, public ownership of public utilities is preferable to private ownership, and I would be entirely in accord with his view
if this principle could be applied to railroads. The hon. gentleman said this: " Private ownership is based on the principle of gain-it is an investment for profit. On the other hand public ownership is based on the idea of service at cost to the people." I find no fault with that principle, but even my hon. friend's definition contains a doubt. He says that it is based on the idea of service at cost to the people; he does not say based on a service at cost to the people; he has 'to include the word " idea " which means a theory. Is it possible to give service to the people at cost?-That is the whole question.. In some cases it is. In other spheres of action, as I said before, even if the price above cost is so little that the benefits derived from it are greater than the over-cost, it would be all right. I am in favour of public ownership of cold storages for instances, because they require very few employees, and if such a policy were adopted the people would not 'be famished and fleeced as they are now by the food barons of this country. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) has also cited in order to prove his case, the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario and the Winnipeg power scheme. Sir, admitting that these enterprises are a success and that in their case public ownership has proven a success, nobody will compare the administration of power enterprises in one province or in one city, with the administration of a system of railroads covering the whole of this Dominion and also operating in the United States. Once the natural energy is converted into electricity the cost of operation is very small-everybody knows that. But in the case of railroad enterprises such as I have described the differ-erence in the cost of operation and in the number of employees is so vast that I am amazed that the facts do not impress the clear and	shrewd	mind of myhon.	friend. When	the	hon.	gentleman speaks of the success of the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario let me remind him that in the city of Montreal a private-owned company sells power just as cheaply. But let me ask my hon. friend this: Is he in favour of the nationalization of grain elevators and telephones, and what have been the results of attempts at such a policy in his own province?


Mr. BURNHAM:: I would like to call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that when the sinking fund is paid off these public-owned properties, the service will be much cheaper than it is now, which is entirely different from private ownership.


Joseph Archambault: It is, but will the Government create a sinking fund in' connection with their policy for the purchase of the Grand Trunk railway? That is quite different.


Mr. McKENZIE:: They will be sinking.


Joseph Archambault: It will be a case of the country sinking to the depths of bankruptcy. But taking it for granted, Sir, that in practice public ownership of certain public utilities could be made a success- and I might admit that it might be made a success-it is bound to be a failure in the case of railroads. It has been a failure wherever it has been adopted.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


Joseph Archambault: It has been a failure in the United States and it has been a failure in England.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Joseph Archambault: It has been also a failure in Canada, and can my hon. friend who disputes my statement name another country where it has been a success except Germany.or Austria, and even in Germany at the present moment there is a deficit of $150,000,000. Will my hon. friend suggest that we should adopt the policy of Germany? Germany is a military-conducted country, and it is because the railroads there are operated by the military authorities that the system has proved a success.


Mr. CHARLES MARCIL:: And there are no strikes.


Joseph Archambault: Very true. As my hon. friend sitting near me states there are no strikes. Now, in order to conduct the operations of a corporation or a business with success, four elements are absolutely necessary and essential: First, efficiency in management; second, the acquisition of the basic materials of industry at the cheapest rate and in the absence of waste; third, the selection of the best officials and employees; and fourth, the creation of an incentive to advancement. Public ownership is practically barren of these four elements, because political influence has always existed in connection therewith and will always exist. Every hon, member who spoke in favour of the Bill-the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid), the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar)-stated that public ownership of railways could not be a 
success if political influence was to remain in Canada. All other reasons in favour of the policy fall flat, even according to their own admissions, if this essential and sine-qua non condition does not exist. It is a Utopia to seriously consider that railways can be operated by a Government-I do not care to what party it belongs-without political influence. If rails, stations, or other equipment of a railroad are needed, friends of the Government will use-


Mr. CANNON:: This Government has nofriends. .


Joseph Archambault: -I am speaking of Governments generally-will use their influence, and sometimes without scruples as to the means, to secure contracts. If a new line or new stations be needed, the private concern will put the new line or the new stations where most needed; but the Government, irrespective of party, will provide the accommodation where it will be most useful politically-we cannot get away from that. If the position of an official or other employee becomes open there are the 100,000 employees that will be created to be considered-because there will be that number of railroad employees under Government control if the present measure passes, and if we add the Grand Trunk railway to the railroads that are already owned by the country.
Well, for every vacancy there will be at least fifty applications from each of the two-hundred and thirty-five ridings in the Dominion, and where is the hon. member who will contend that from among 11,750 applicants for one job the most efficient will be selected?
Moreover, under the circumstances, the best men will not apply. The best qualified men are always eager for advancement, and this incentive, so necessary to efficiency, does not exist in the case of a publicly-owned company. A great number of men, builders of industry, have started at the bottom and landed at the top, and it is that prospect which makes them hard workers, which makes them- efficient, which makes them devoted to their employers. Many names could be cited as examples, but one of the most striking is the example of the ex-president of the -Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Lord Shaughnessy, who, if I am not mistaken, entered the service of the company as a telegrapher at ten dollars a week and climbed steadily through various stages in the company's employ until he became president. There are other examples,. Sir, too numerous, to mention. Can the

Minister of Railways or the Minister of the Interior give many examples of a government employee who started at the bottom as clerk and reached the head of his department?
Mr. W. F. MACfLEAN: The present postmaster of Toronto.


Joseph Archambault: Can my hon. friend name any others?


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: Yes.


Joseph Archambault: Many others?


Air. RICHARDSON:: The collector of customs at Winnipeg.


Joseph Archambault: 
Joseph Archambault: Well, I am not ready to answer that. But I remind the House that the position of head of the Railway Commission has certainly not been given to a gentleman who started at the bottom as a railway clerk.


Mr. J. D. REID:: That is a judicial position.
. Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:	Well, call it
judicial if you like; it is a government railway position, nevertheless.
I have said that the acquisition of this railway creates a huge political machine dangerous to the State. Imagine a strike for higher wages of one hundred thousand employees of a railway. If the strike is in a private concern the Government can interfere as conciliator-even in certain cases with a strong arm. But if they are government employees, what Government will take the risk of antagonizing one hundred thousand employees from all over Canada, probably- enough in each riding of the country to elect a representative one way or
the other? No Government wall take any such chances. The demands although perhaps unreasonable, will be met; the deficits will be greater and the poor taxpayer will again be the worse off.
What are the prospects of the elimination of patronage under the present Government? The railways do not com% under the control of the Civil Service Commission; there is no question about that. On every occasion when the Civil Service Commission or anything pertaining to it has come up for discussion in the House, scores of members on your right, Sir, have protested vigorously against the bone being taken out of their mouths and have demanded eagerly a quick return to patronage. These are not very encouraging signs of the death of patronage. But, Sir, recently I had occasion to bring before the House a most glaring case-a sad case-of political patronage, not a case where a job was in question, but a case where the whole system of the Canadian National railways in one district was tampered with in order to aid political propaganda. I was not allowed to disclose all the facts at the time, but I am now in possession of further information and it may be interesting to my hon. friends to know what kind of political patronage is permitted to thrive under the present Government. On the 17th of September, 1919, 1 received the following letter from one of my constituents:
Dear Sir:-I enclose herewith clipping dated September 6 with regard to alleged misuse jf Canadian National railway train between Hybla and Toronto for the benefit of a political Picnic.
This charge is very serious, too serious to pass unchallenged, and I would thank you to inquire into same, on the floor of the House if necessary, to see if things of this nature are
allowed to happen.
Yours respectfully,
Here is the clipping:
Slain by Politics.
The Romans used to have a proverb " Butchered to make a Roman holiday " In Canada we do better. We kill children in order to make a political picnic.
The other day R. H. Thompson of Hybla Ontario, boarded a Canadian National railway train at his local station, with his little girl, who was critically ill, jn order that she might be taken to the hospital for sick children, Toronto. The time table called for the arrival of that train in Toronto at nine o'clock that evening and the father depended upon reaching the city at that time, as it was a case of desperate hurry. When the train got to Bancroft the child became much -worse, and to his dismay the father found from the railway conductor that the train would not proceed any farther that day, because all the cars were needed to take good followers of the Union and Hearst Govern-

ments to a picnic at Marmora given by E. Gus Porter, a Unionist M.P. for West Hastings.
Mr. Thompson consulted a local doctor and was told that the only thing to be done was to take the child to an hotel for twenty-four hours until the Canadian Government would be ready to fulfil its contract to carry the father and child to Toronto. This was done. The next morning the train was taken to Toronto. On arrival in the city,, 24 hours after the time she should have arrived, the child was hurried to the hospital and was operated upon. But ;t was too late, and she died in a few hours, leaving behind a broken-hearted father, who was compelled to go home and tell his wife that their child had died, because the Government allowed a political picnic to suspend the schedule of their National railway.
I immediately sought to bring the matter up on the Orders of the Day, but I was stopped the moment I mentioned the name of the paper, namely, Jack Canuck.


Mr. SHEARD:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Archambault: My hon. friend may laugh, but it was'the same paper which flooded the trenches during the elections in 1917 with money of the Unionist organization.	I put the question on the Order
Paper and I finally got the following answer:
1. No trains were cancelled for the purpose mentioned, hut on account of shortage of equipment and motive power due to troop movement and harvest excursions and to accommodate extra traffic on the branch the time of train No. 60 was changed, due notice of which was given to the public affected thereby.
To question No. 2 asking if the Government were aware of what had happened to Mr. Thompson's child, the answer was "no"; and to question No. 3, asking if the Government intended to hold an immediate inquiry into the matter, the answer was "no My next move was to write a letter to Mr. Thompson. I thought that the matter was so grave and sad that it should he investigated, and with your permission, Sir, I will read Mr. Thompson's reply:
Monteagle Valley, October 3, 1919.
Dear Sir:-Received your letter of 30th n regard to the hold up of the Canadian Northern railway regular train for Porter's picnic at Marmora. On August 20th I boarded the train on said date with my littie daughter of six years who was suffering from appendicitis. When I got to Hyhla the trainmen helped me in the baggage with the cot. Just when the train was ready to pull out, the conductor asked me where I was going. When I told him, to Toronto, he said I had better wait until the next day as the train was going to be held over until six o'clock at Marmora, so I could not get a train out from Trenton to Toronto before three o'clock in the morning of the 21st. But there was no use of taking my sick child back home as something had to be done at once. When I got to Bancroft, Dr. A. T. Embury met me at the station and advised me to

wait over as so long on the road would he more than my child could stand, so I waited until the 21st, and as there is a fast train one day and a slow train the next that handles freight, I had to take the slow train. This hold-up was not advertised at all. This can he proven by Mr. N. D. McElroy of 49 Grosvenor Street, Ottawa, who was taking his wife home from Baptiste lake on a stretcher and had to wait over at Bancroft. Had the hold-up been advertised, I could have got to Bancroft by auto and gone to Toronto by way of Lindsay. I reached Toronto about nine o'clock in the evening of the 21st and my child was operated on without delay. She spent a fair night, hut took bad in the morning and died about eight o'clock on the 22nd in the evening. The doctor said if I had got there before the twenty-four hours I was held up she would have every chance.
But listen to this:
My wife was sick with bronchial and nerve trouble at the time. The shock of losing my little daughter was more than she could stand, and she passed away on the 13th September leaving me with three small children. I am now obliged to sell out my stock at a sacrifice price as I cannot look after my children here. Will close as I think I have told you everything as is the facts.
You will notice that in this letter Mr. Thompson mentioned that another witness, a Mr. McElroy, was with him. I accordingly wrote a letter to Mr. McElroy, and this is the reply which I received from him:
Dear Sir:-Replying to favour of the 10th instant, re Mr. R. H. Thompson of Monteagle Valley, Ontario. On August 20th, I went to the Canadian Northern railway station at Bancroft to make arrangement to bring my wife to Trenton on a stretcher, she. having met with an accident while camping at Lake Baptiste. Was informed by the agent, Mr. Smith, that the trains were running on a spur line that day to Marmora to carry passengers to and from Mr. Gus Porter's picnic. Mr. Smith advised me to wait until next day as it would mean a delay of five hours at least and would cut off all connections at Trenton. On Thursday, August 21, got accommodation in the baggage car where I met Mr. Thompson who had his little girl on a cot rushing to Toronto with her to have her operated on under the advice of his family doctor. Mr. Thompson boarded the train the day before at Hybla, two stations north of Bancroft. Fortunately for me the delay did-not signify, but learned recently that on Mr. Thompson's arrival at the hospital, he was told by the doctors that he was too late with his child as other complications had set in and nothing could be done for his child so death occurred. Outside of inconvenience to the travelling public and causing the sick prolonged suffering and in the end to lose those that are near and dear to you, it was the most inconsistent piece of railroading that has come under my notice in the eighteen years of my road life.
I do not question the answer of the minister. Probably the answer was given to him by one of his officials.


John Dowsley Reid: The question that appeared on the Order Paper I sent to the

management at Toronto and the answer that I gave to the hon. member was the one which I received from the management.


Joseph Archambault: May I be permitted to read a public letter addressed to the Minister of Railways:
Hon. J. D. Reid, M.P.,
Minister of Railways,
Ottawa.
Sir:-As a Minister of the Crown, we take it for granted that in your answer to questions put to you in the House of Commons, you are expected to tell the truth. Having this belief, we venture to call your attention to several-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I am entirely in the opinion of the House in this matter, and I think that the hon. ime/mber for Chambly and Vercheres was perfectly justified in bringing to the attention of the House a certain incident which he considers to be a reason or an example why public ownership should not he encouraged. That having been done, I think that he should return to the question under discussion and that he should not take up the time of the House upon the third reading of the Bill concerning the acquisition of the Grand Trunk railway in discussing the correctness of an answer given to a question in connection with another matter before the House of Commons.


Joseph Archambault: I just wish to read this letter if I may be permitted.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the letter related in any way to the acquisition of the Grand Trunk system it could certainly be read, but as I understand it, it relates entirely to another matter, to a question answered by an hon. minister in the House of Commons. Even if the letter were relevant, if it contains a reflection upon the conduct of a minister or a member in the House, or upon any proceeding in the House it could not be read.


Joseph Archambault: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it does not reflect on the conduct of a minister in the House, but simply puts a question to the minister. I submit that we are discussing the public ownership of railways and that as this letter relates to the administration of the railways under public ownership, it is in order for me to read it.


Georges Henri Boivin: There is a well-known rule of Parliament which says:
Nor is it in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating from persons outside the House, and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said
by a member, or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the House.


Joseph Archambault: I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker. I do n'ot say that the Minister of Railways sanctioned the excursion, but the lesson I can logically draw from this unfortunate incident is that the operation of the Government railways is bedevilled by politicians. What must the people of the country think? The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter), ex-tPremier Hearst, and T. W. McGarry must feel proud that the price of the success' of their political picnic was practically the murder of a suffering child.
Returning to the general question of the Government ownership of railways, let me read a resolution on this subject recently passed by the most important association of business men in America, the Merchants' Association of New York:
Whereas, By reason of conditions inseparable from our form of government, governmental operation of economic undertakings, whether Federal, State or Municipal, is characterized by:
Extreme delays and inertia, vacillation, hesitancy and inconsistency in matters of policy ;
Wasteful outlays in response to sectional demands;
Insufficient provision of funds when needed for necessary purposes;
Absence of close and harmonious co-operation between the legislative directorate and the executive officials ;
Insecurity of tenure in the higher places and lack of self-interest as an incentive;
Frequent change of higher officials and the injection into office of new and untried men ;
Unsuitable methods of selecting executive officials whereby such officials are not often properly qualified by expert knowledge, previous training, experience or proved capacity;
Hampering conditions imposed by law upon executives whereby they are deprived of necessary control of operation and of their subordinates ; and
Whereas, From these conditions naturally result imperfect co-ordination, lack of qualified management, bad operating methods and general waste and inefficiency; both the methods and the results being diametrically opposite to ' those which prevail in properly managed business undertakings, which latter are governed solely by economic considerations, and require for their success close and friendly relations between the directorate and the officials; the prompt provisions of funds as required by the economic needs of the business; high capacity, long experience and special training on the part of the executive officials, assured tenure during efficiency, self-interest, and the possession by such officials of a very large degree of discretion as to outlays and operating details ; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, By The Merchants' Association of New Torlc that governmental methods in the conduct of business affairs are inherently defective by reason of the fundamental restrictions imposed by our form of government; and that such methods are often inefficient and

to increasing the burden of taxes! The returned men were promised everything in the world during the election, but the returned men and the widows and orphans of the returned men did not weigh in the balance of the hon. member so long as his old and not forgotten friends of twenty years ago across the seas get their $120,000,000.
Let us see now what there is in the supreme argument that there is no alter-' native but liquidation and that feeders in the -East will change a non-paying proposition into a most successful system. Are we sure of that proposition? Is it even a probability? In England and in the United States the feeders were there because the United States and English Governments controlled all the railways in their own countries. But let us assume that the proposition is sound and see if there is no way out of it but the acquisition of a controlling interest in the Grand Trunk. The Minister of Railways on the 15tli stated:
(a)	That if the Grand Trunk is not acquired the Dominion Government must spend $100,900,0'00 to $200,000,000 for branch lines and terminals in the east.
(b)	That Canadian National railways are without branch lines or terminals in the East and therefore could not gather freight in the East for shipment W^st.
(e) That therefore the outlay for .terminals and duplication would be avoided.
(d) That the only way to keep the Grand Trunk out of Canadian Pacific railway hands is to buy it-is to prevent it going into the hands of a receiver and unless this is done there would be no future for the Canadian National.
The statements of the Minister of the Interior and the President of the Privy Council were about the same. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the facts do not bear out these statements, that there are at least two alternatives, and one especially which is very simple, and to which I wish to draw the attention of the Cabinet in order that they should give it- their consideration be; for it is too late.
First-It has been admitted that the Grand Trunk, having defaulted in its obligations could readily be forced into the hands of a receiver; therefore, the Dominion Government has the power to compel a reasonable attitude on the part of the Grand Trunk in order to make a traffic contract or alliance or on any other matter.
Second-It is a common practice of privately owned and operated railways to make traffic contracts or alliances with other railways by which all reasonable means are provided for interchange of traffic without the ruinous expense of building into every

section of country from which traffic is sought.
Third-The natural Canadian outlet for Grand Trunk traffic, from Eastern to Western Canada is via North Bay, but as the Grand Trunk long haul is from Toronto to Chicago and its short haul from Toronto to North Bay, a long term traffic contract requiring all its traffic to be delivered to the' Canadian National at North Bay, could readily provide the means for liquidating a considerable portion of the Grand Trunk's financial obligations to Canada.
Fourth-It is an error to assert that the Canadian National is to-day without any eastern branches or terminals. It is very completely entrenched in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick; has Government access to the great ocean terminals at Halifax and St. John, and also a considerable system of railway lines in Ontario and Quebec.	-
Fifth-It has been asserted also that in order to make a success of the Canadian National railways the terminals of the Grand Trunk are needed. By the traffic contract I would suggest the Grand Trunk could give access to the Canadian National to all the terminals and give running rights required, and the Government would not disburse one cent, but would credit the Grand Trunk with such sums as might he determined for rentals, running rights and surrender of its long haul at North Bay, and apply these credits to the extinction of the obligations of the Grand Trunk towards the Government of Canada. This, in my humble opinion, is one way out of it., and it should be carefully considered by the Government.
There is also another proposition, and it comes from a prominent and respectable business man, Mr. John Baillie, president of the Montreal Board of Trade.


Mr. McMASTER:: A good Tory.


Joseph Archambault: Yes and a good Tory, too. Here is the suggestion which Mr. Baillie made at the meeting of the Montreal Board of Trade:
Personally I think there are men in Canada now, as there were in the old days, who can help the country by forming- a syndicate like the C.P.R. and taking over the Grand Trunk.
I think there is room in this country to form another such organization and take the road over and run it. They could run it in a business way far better than any government in Canada or any other country, irrespective of political faith. If we have to put the money up to run it, it had better not be under government control.
The Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern should be run together. I am in favour of that,

but not under government ownership. It the Grand Trunk should run it, then possibly the government roads should be leased part or in whole to the. Grand Trunk or C.P.R. 1 think two great systems are advisable in this country.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, before recess, I had suggested two alternatives, either of which, in my opinion, the Government might adopt with better advantage to the interest of the people of Canada than the acquiring of the control of the Grand Trunk as is proposed in this Bill. The first was a traffic arrangement, or contract, or alliance between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Canadian Government under which the Grand Trunk would surrender their long haul from Toronto to Chicago and deliver all through traffic coming from tne East to the Canadian National Railways at North Bay. This contract would also give to the Canadian National railways the use of the terminals they need; it would give them certain running rights, and it would enable the Grand Trunk to liquidate its obligations to Canada.
The second suggestion-it was the suggestion of a promintent business man, Mr. John Baillie, president of the Montreal Board of Trade-was the formation of a syndicate to take over the Grand Trunk. I believe that this suggestion also is a good one. If my hon. friends are afraid of the Canadian Pacific getting control, they could easily direct the Railway Commission to prevent any amalgamation of this syndicate with or its control by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Now, Sir, we have not yet heard any discussion of these two alternatives. They have not been discussed in the House, but I believe that they deserve serious consideration. The Government would be derelict to its duty in rejecting the amendment now under discussion, because that amendment would give them an-opportunity to weigh carefully these alternatives with a view to serving the best interests of the country.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The hon. member
should not say that they have not been discussed; they have been discussed over and over again.


Joseph Archambault: 
John Dowsley Reid: I did not make a trip to Washington last week.


Joseph Archambault: Then, I have
'been wrongly informed. But is the minister in a position to state that he had no interviews with the authorities at Washington in relation to the running of the Grand Trunk lines in the United States after the Canadian Government acquires them?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. I had no interviews nor discussions in any way, shape or form with any one at Washington or any one in the United States. The only person that I had any communication with in connection with the Grand Trunk was Sir Alfred Smithers.


Joseph Archambault: If the minister
had no information from and no discussion with the authorities at Washington, my point ie much stronger because we should have had this information. Only lately, I read in one of the newspapers that the authorities at Washington were watching eagerly what this Parliament was going to do in regard to this matter. Another piece of information which might perhaps prove of no value, but which might lead to an interesting discussion is the list of shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. If we had that list, it might reassure the mind of the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. M. Clark), and it might convince him that the deal that is now going through will not be of any assistance to his poor widows and orphans on the other side, but will be of some assistance to other parties.
I come now to public opinion which some hon. members seem to treat so lightly. Has public opinion demanded the present deal? I listened very carefully to the whole discussion in the hope that some hon. member
or the minister would place on Hansard or give to the House communications containing requests or petitions from provinces, cities or towns, showing that they were anxious that the Government should acquire the controlling stock of the Grand Trunk. But I have heard nothing of the kind. The only reference made to public opinion was made by the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), who stated that he was anxious to have the Bill go through this session because if we delayed it, public opinion might rise in Canada against the Bill. In my opinion, this was the most bare-faced, anti-democratic statement I ever had occasion to listen to. But on the other hand, protests have been pouring in from every place in Canada, from Boards of Trade.


Arthur Meighen: Where?


Joseph Archambault: From Regina.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Archambault: My hon. friends
may laugh, but it is a fact that there was a protest from the Regina Board of Trade. I believe the report was just as accurate as the explanation given to the House by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) himself, who was not there, who had no news of it before the report was brought into the House and who could not possibly know what had taken place. I believe that the report of the Regina Board of Trade should be taken into consideration.


Arthur Meighen: , I can tell my hon. friend that the report is that there were not seven, but six good Mackenzie King Liberals there and no one else. But the Toronto Board of Trade recently, at a meet-ig at which 300 gentlemen were present, unanimously passed a resolution strongly endorsing this proposition.


Joseph Archambault: I take the word
of the minister, but at the same time, the reading of that resolution might be interesting. There were also protests from the Montreal Board of Trade which is not a negligible body. I know that the gentlemen who compose the Montreal Board of Trade have always been staunch supporters of the Government. I know they passed a resolution in favour of conscription in 1917, which led the ministers of the Government to say that if these hard-headed business men were asking for conscription we should have conscription in this country. Why is it that the Government praises Boards of Trade when they favour their legislation, and treats their opinions very lightly when

they are opposed to the Government's legislation?


Arthur Meighen: They are nearly all in favour of it.


Joseph Archambault: Name some.


Arthur Meighen: I have just mentioned one.


Joseph Archambault: That is not "nearly all".


Arthur Meighen: Get through with that one first.


Joseph Archambault: Then we have a resolution from the Board of Trade of Halifax. which is pretty far from Montreal. I do not see much ground for my hon. friend's statement that nearly all Boards of Trade are in favour of this legislation when he can only cite one, without even reading it to the House.
Will my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) state whether the Halifax Board of Trade is for or against this legislation.


William Findlay Maclean: Will my hon. friend repeat his question?


Joseph Archambault: Shall 1 put the question in French?


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, not at all.


Joseph Archambault: Perhaps my knowledge of English is so imperfect that my bon. friend did not understand the question.


William Findlay Maclean: Oil, not at all. I can compliment my hon. friend on his perfect knowledge of the English language but the fact is that my mind was occupied with other matters when he first prtt his question.	[DOT]


Joseph Archambault: Well, my question was if my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) will-state whether the Halifax Board of Trade is for nr against this legislation.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: They never passed a resolution against it and therefore I cannot tell.


Arthur Meighen: Wrong again.


Joseph Archambault: I may have been misled, but I remember quite well that while we were discussing this Bill in committee the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) started to read the resolution passed by the Halifax Board of Trade when my hon. friend from Halifax got up and said that but for him the hon. member for Lunenburg would never have got that information.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand that a committee, or part of a committee, of the Halifax Board of Trade informally met one day and passed a resolution. I do not know the exact purport of it but it neither approved nor disapproved. I understand that the resolution, whatever it was, met with the condemnation of the Board of Trade later on. In fact, it was not a resolution at all.


Joseph Archambault: It might be interesting to have this resolution or whatever my hon. friend chooses to call it read in the House. At. all events hon. gentlemen opposite cannot deny the fact that newspapers, erstwhile strong supporters of the Government are opposed to this legislation, and, of course, these papers represent the opinion of the districts where they are published, to say the least. They are branding the Bill as an impending calamity to the state. The Government, however, pays no heed to these protests and has decided to pass the Bill even if it is necessary to name new senators. Is it possible that this Government does not see the writing on the wall? Is it possible that they are blind to the unrest in Canada and deaf to the voice of the people? I trust not. I sincerely hope that the far-seeing members on your right, Mr. Speaker, will join with us in staying the project with all its dire consequences. My appeal may be unsuccessful, but I shall at least have the satisfaction of having performed a duty inherent to my mandate in giving a plain warning to the Government of an impending disaster.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Jacques-Cartier) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I had not expected to be called upon, in the course of this session, to speak in this House. First of all, I had been expressly forbidden so to do by my physician, owing to the bad condition of my health; but in spite of this, 1 shall yield to the requirements of my duty, as I have always done, turning away, thereby, from obedience to that medical injunction and to the request of my family.
-Mr. Speaker, I should like to see many members go out while I am addressing the Chair, I should then undergo a strain somewhat lighter, I would feel more at ease and not so deeply moved, and my task would be all the easier. I quite realize that it may not be agreeable for those hon. gentlemen to listen to your humble servant expressing himself in the language of Molifere and Racine, and not in the language of Shakespeare, I wish I could show more compla-

cency lor our friends sitting to the right side of the Chair, but this is an impossibility for me, and I feel much more at ease when I happen to use my own mother-tongue.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with keen interest to all that has been said on the question now submitted to this House, and so far as I can recollect, ever since I had the honour to occupy a seat within these precincts, no question was debated with so much science, eloquence or authority by the hon. members who have preceded me. As I have somewhat a partiality for my own friends-I mean particularly the hon. members who sit on this side of the House-I have listened with a great deal of pli^sure, I must admit, to the young members of the Opposition when they dealt with this proposition in such an able and forceful manner. I shall, therefore, congratulate them all, most heartily.
I have often times participated in very serious debates which took place within these precincts, debates which lasted uninterruptedly through many days and even many weeks, and had reference to questions which we thought it our duty to discuss to the full measure of our strength, trying thereby to defeat, if possible, the proposals submitted. I shall now ask those of my colleagues who share my own opinion to support the views which I am about to expound, I shall ask them as a special favour to speak as fully and as often as may be required to defeat this nefarious measure.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why should we buy a railroad, under the straitened circumstances in which we are placed? Why should we think of buying a railroad, when we have no money?
An honourable MEMBER: Hear, hear.
Mr. iLAFORTUNE : Always did I approve those who say: "Never buy on credit, buy for cash, and if you cannot buy for cash, do not buy at all. Buying on credit is a ruinous policy, and its consequences are always fatal."
The railway which the Government intends to take over is capitalized at about $500,000,000, a pretty large sum, Mr. Speaker, though not considerable for a prosperous Government; but it is a large sum for a country whose financial condition is unsettled. Under the circumstances, it is foolish to entertain a proposition of this kind; no wonder so many protests are made throughout the country, and if we are to judge of it by the most unpleasant remarks which are hurled at the Government from all parts, we must come to the conclusion
that public opinion is very much exercised over it. I ask you, again, why should we buy a railway when we are burdened with more obligations than the Government can face? The budget of the country shows large deficits every year, and strange to say, the honourable gentlemen, as though they wished to make our condition worse, are trying, by every possible means, to deepen the abyss in which we are plunged.
Mr. Speaker, though not conversant to a great extent with financial matters and not having made a special study of the railway policy, I have some experience, however, I have investigated what happened in the past and what is taking place just now, and I frankly declare that the position taken by the honourable gentlemen on the other side has been a great surprise to me. I do not charge them with bad faith, and I respect their opinion, for I am willing to admit that they thought they were doing the right thing, and were really satisfied that this transaction was in the interest of the country. But, heavens' I am very much afraid that their opinion will not be accepted later on, that is, when they have to render an account of what they have done.
As long as a member does not have to stand before his electors, he can always do and say as he pleases; but when it is a question of showing clearly his policy to the puhlic who have elected him, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not envy the position of my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House when, pressed by the electors, they are called upon to give them detailed information and vouchers explaining the reason of the enormous expenditure which this calamitous transaction is going to saddle on the people of this country. I repeat, iSir, that the people will have their turn and perhaps sooner than our 'hon. friends seem to believe. Far from me the idea of trying to offend anybody, but experience tells us that things are not so bright for the hon. gentlemen of the other side of the House; clouds a.re gathering, the sky is getting darker; from all sides one hears Tumblings, the people are restless and, .as you know, Mr. Speaker, when the anger of the people is aroused there is cause for apprehension. Nothing in the world would lead me to accept any part of the responsibility which is incumbent on the hon. gentlemen opposite and therefore I believe it is my duty to stand up in this House and protest very energetically against the adoption of such a measure. I said a few moments ago that this year again we shall have to face

a deficit of at least $18,000,000 in the operation of our railways. This is an enormous sum, Mr. Speaker. Still when we ask that certain works be undertaken in the immediate interest of our electors, nay, most urgent works, this is the answer we get: "What could we do? We have no money. We understand that your request on behalf of your electors is fair and reasonable, but we cannot possibly help it". This is, Mr. Speaker, the answer that we get from them, and the answer is correct because, I assure you, the treasury of this country is far from overflowing and whatever sum we may have to invest in that way .amounts to very little. But if we lack funds to meet the urgent needs of this country, and I think the hon. gentlemen are right in so stating, why then should we seek to acquire a road which will cost millions of dollars? This is the question, that I, like some of my good friends on this side of the House, have not ceased to .ask of the Government, nut so far no satisfactory answer has come forth. Why are they trying to persuade this House that it will be of great advantage to the country to buy a road wrhen we have not the money to pay for it.
By what I see, the hon. minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) while an honourable man, iis the most astute lawyer I ever came across. At home, .such men are termed hair splitters, I shall not presume to detract from his merits; far from it and I .shall say that if the hon. minister had taken1 up as a career pleading before criminal courts, nobody would ever have been hanged. His cleverness, his persuasive ways, his mellifluous tones in the service of a bad oau.se, are unexcelled, and I do not think there is in this House any one who can compare with him in this respect. He is never taken unawiares; there is always an answer forthcoming; and many who have not made a study of him are liable to abide by his statements, to believe 'in his sincerity. As for me, having seen him so often on the job and thus being in a position to adequately size him up, I have no hesitation in saying that he has not yet convinced us that he was right.
On .the contrary I think, and it is the opinion of a great number of my friends, that the more he has tried to explain the case the more he has given proofs of his weakness, not his personal weakness, but that of the cause which he was defending. Is it a matter for surprise, Mr. Speaker, that supporters of our friends opposite,

very respectable and worthy gentlemen, .men who have sat in this House for a great many years, should cut off the ties binding them to the Government? For, if I am well informed,, the Government can no longer depend on the support of many of its old-time partisans. We shall observe their demeanour when the bell rings and they are called upon to openly express (heir opinion. It will be particularly interesting to notice the stand of Liberals who have abandoned their party and joined the present Government. If they have deserted us, it is no doubt, for serious reasons.
They wanted to follow the dictates of theil*conscience on a policy of momentous intereslt to the public at large; they expressed the view that they could no longer support the party as regards conscription issue and consequently they extended a generous hand to our opponents for the "time being" and no further.
Sir, conscription being no longer a question of the hour, what position will they take? I wonder if my hon. friends who. were seen in our ranks ever since they began to meddle with politics, ever since they were born, so to speak, may sincerely and conscientiously approve the transaction which is now submitted to us. Up to the present time I believed them to be sincere and in good faith, but I must reserve my right to Judge them otherwise if they agree to this proposition and if they vote for this measure.	_	_
I have taken, so far, a keen interest in the railway policy, and I am perfectly aware of what happened when the North .Shore railway was built. Great discussions took place, many public meetings were held and that enterprise was fully discussed pro and con toy tooth political parties. It would seem that whenever the railway question is dealt with, the weak side of my hon. friends' cuirass is reached.
They had built a railway for $14,000,000 or $15,000,000, and they sold it for $6,500,000. We said to them: What transaction do you wish to make? That road has cost $14,500,000 and you are going to sell it for $6,500,000? It is ridiculous. They replied that the transaction was in keeping with the public interest. Poor tax-payers! How they are loved ! How jealously their rights are safeguarded, and public money economized! The more one has, the more one wants. Our good friends from Toronto have sacrificed hundreds of millions by taking over the Canadian Northern, and yet they are not satisfied. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the more one has the more one wants. Having caused

the country to spend an enormous amount of money for the (Canadian Northern, they now wish to bring the country to ruin. Yes, how they like the good Canadian people, and how they concern themselves with the credit of the country !	.
Mr. Speaker, having promised my dear [DOT]electors so many good things, I often wonder how it will be possible for me to canvass their votes once more, they are such a good sort of people, and they thought I could obtain justice for them. Often [DOT]times did I advocate, in their behalf, the building of a bridge from Perrot island to Vaudreuil, and of another bridge from Vaudreuil to 'St. Ann! Well, like sister Ann, as says the song, J keep waiting, but nothing is yet in sight. My hon. friend the member for Vaudreuil and Soulanges (Mr. Boyer) whose political career spells sacrifice, who has been most active, who has even spent a good deal of money, has joined me. We have joined hands, but in vain, to the effect that those two bridges, which are so necessary, should be built. This would entail a total expenditure of about $.350,000. What is that sum, after all, for the Canadian Government, for the government of a country with inexhaustible resources, resources representing millions and I should rather say billions of dollars. In fact, for centuries to come, this country can undertake to do whatever it pleases. As was said by the old woman whom somebody tried to frighten, one day: "No matter, Canada can stand it."
When we urge the building of a bridge to accommodate the electors of Vaudreuil and Soulanges, to help those whom I have the honour to represent, that is, the county of Jacques-Cartier, the finest in the whole country-


Andrew Ross McMaster: The finest is Brome.


David Arthur Lafortune: There should be no question of taking an inventory. When we ask the hon. gentlemen to live up to the promises made by all the hon. gentlemen who have represented that county, we are told that there is "no money available".
A short time ago, I urged the repairing of the bridge on Bizard island, the approaches of which were built by this 'Government. That would have been about $300. The answer was: "No money."
When I urge the repairing of the Lachine wharf, which is in such a pitiful condition as to be dangerous and inaccessible to the public, the answer is: "No money".
When I urge the repairing of the Pointe-Claire wharf, which the ice is about to sweep away-in fact, it should be rebuilt altogether, because it is almost completely gone and it is impossible to repair it-I am told again that there is "no money available."
When I ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) a most worthy gentleman who has held a judgeship for many years, a member of the Government, to his own credit and to the credit of his electors; when I ask him why not build a tunnel under the Lachine Canal, to make it possible for my own electors in Ville-Emard to cross that canal at any time, day or night, I get the same answer. Yet, those poor workingmen, those poor women and children, must stand on the bank of the canal for hours and hours, amid snow and severe frost, suffering from the bad weather at any time in the year, waiting till the canal is free and the bridge is open to them, that they may go to work in the morning and come back home about six o'clock in the evening, losing, every time, as a result of this inconvenience, half an hour, an hour or perhaps more.
Now, I said to the hon. minister, being the representative of that territory (for the constituency he represents is next to my own), why do you not urge your Government to build that tunnel which is essential for the protection of those poor workmen? "His answer was: "Yes, sir, you are right, but what can we do, we have no money?"
Well, Mr. Speaker, I asked for the enlargement of a small bridge spanning the Lachine canal, a bridge which originally was sufficient, seeing the limited business which was transacted there. That bridge was erected when there were but
2.000	people; the town of Lachine has now
20.000	inhabitants. When two vehicles pass over that small bridge, people are wondering what they should do not to be crushed. On a certain occasion, a young girl seventeen years old fell into the water and had it not been for a citizen who was on the spot, she would have been drowned. And such has been the condition for many years.
I am wondering how long such conditions will prevail. I am wondering how long the country will stand such an Administration. Time will tell. However, as I said a moment ago, beware, the voice of the people is dreadful when their anger is aroused. 1 assure you it is nothing to laugh at.

The present Government state, and I believe they are right in that, they cannot meet their obligations. They are perfectly right; I agree with them for the first time. The Government are unable to live up to their most pressing obligations.
Now, what happens in such cases? In our province, when a man cannot meet his obligations, we call it bankruptcy. I do not know how it may be called here. There is another name, insolvency, if you would have it so; however, the two names are in close relationship.
Now, if they be unable to meet the obligations they are committed to, could any one tell me what has become of the surpluses of the former Administration? Where is the money which these gentlemen got when they took hold of the coffers? I hear rumours of all kinds as to that, but the chief one is that nobody knows where it went.
Mr. Speaker, our main obligations are numerous, are they not? With respect to that, had they any rfioney and were I called upon to humbly advise the hon. members on the other side, I should tell them: "Gentlemen, the main obligation for Canada at the present time is to give to the returned soldiers what they ask for." In my opinion, it would be the right thing to do unto them. The returned soldiers are entitled to an altogether peculiar protection. We shall never repay the debt of gratitude we owe them. We may perhaps give them instalments; we could never give (he full measure of gratitude they have the right to expect from Canada.
Now, what answer has just been given to the returned soldiers? "Yes, gentlemen, you are right; you have made great sacrifices; the country greets you like heroes; but what can we do, we have no money?" When money fails, money fails and yet sums will be found for the taking over of railways. When it is a matter of protecting those concerned in such legislation, means are always found to get the required funds, but for the soldiers it is out of the question.
Be careful, the soldiers know how to fire guns; you call them heroes because they have been able to handle arms; they still have their brawn and muscle, beware! Beware of the soldiers; do not delude them.
If we had money, Mr. Speaker, we could help our soldiers and take the necessary measures so as to set them up in business, to protect their wives and children, in short, to give them a square deal. Had we the necessary funds, we would be pre-

pared to help agriculture and the farming class that needs so much help, and to protect also the workingman; we could put our soldiers in a position to earn a decent living.
The chief duty of a government, it seems to me, is to do every thing which is possible, nay, impossibilities so as to render the people contented and prosperous. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that at the present time prosperity is seldom seen in this country. There is but one class of contented people in Canada, those who live at other people's expenses; to them distress is unknown..
At night they have well-lined purses and nothing else to do but rack their brains and devising the means of going into new expenses; as I said, Sir, they are at the present time the only truly happy people in the country.
If we have any money to spend, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that one of the very first thing to do would be to increase our exports by assuring on all foreign markets a safe place for our Canadian products; however, it does not seem to be the purpose of the Government to do so.
' Instead of spending our time discussing this measure, if we took the necessary steps and appointed special financial agents on the different markets of the world with a view to successfully and advantageously introducing our Canadian products abroad, render this country a much greater ser-rende rthis country a much greater service. I regret, Sir, that the time at our disposal will not permit us to do .so.
At the present time the labourers complain of a shortage of labour and no later than yesterday I noticed that in the town of iLachine a strike involving from 2,000 to 2,500 men was called in the works of the great Dominion Bridge Company. What is the reason of this strike? The labourers tell us that the wages are inadequate. Should the Government have at their disposal a sufficient sum of money, they could launch out into new enterprises and grant further contracts to these large establishments in such a way that in their turn these companies could pay higher wages to their employees and strikes would no longer be heard of in this country. May I Mr. Speaker, be permitted to say a word about the hon. gentleman whom the Liberal party has chosen as its leader. Our new leader, who is the embodiment of honour has devoted many years to the study of these important questions as well as other domestic problems which all make for the hap-

piness and prosperity of our people. I would suggest by right of seniority, although his leadership turns to his advantage-I would suggest, I say, in my own name as well as on behalf of the people I have the honour to represent in this House, that he let not this measure carry and become law. This measure shall not became law and for that purpose, if it be necessary, we shall sit here day and night; perhaps will they be discouraged at last.


Andrew Ross McMaster: They are already discouraged.


David Arthur Lafortune: No, Mr. Speaker, such a scandalous measure most not become law by the sanction of this Parliament, and I ask my hon. leader to stand up and appeal to all those who are ready to support him to form into a solid front and tell these gentlemen opposite what the French told the Germans at Verdun: "No, you shall not pass." And, Mr. Speaker, you know that the Germans did not pass; so will it be to-day with this measure.


Mr. MACKIE:: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


David Arthur Lafortune: With pleasure, if it is a reasonable one.


Herbert John Mackie: If a private company
cannot possibly make a succes of the administration of the railway, what alternative will the hon. member suggest to this House?


David Arthur Lafortune: All I ask is that the House do not run the country into debt and be not a party to this infamous transaction.


Herbert John Mackie: Will the hon. gentleman allow me one more question?


David Arthur Lafortune: Most assuredly, and as often as you please.


Herbert John Mackie: I very much appreciate the privilege that the hon. gentleman gives me.


David Arthur Lafortune: You may ask as many question as you like, provided they are not too long.


Herbert John Mackie: My hon. friend seems to circumscribe me within certain, limits; he does not want me to ask too many questions.


David Arthur Lafortune: I am not here to undergo a cross examination; yet I am ready to answer all your questions.


Herbert John Mackie: Let me put the same question once more: If a company feels that it cannot possibly make a success of the administration of a railway what then would you have to suggest to this House?


David Arthur Lafortune: In reply to the question put by my learned friend I might say that when a company is not in a position to meet its obligations, so .much the worse for the company. We, to-day, are under no obligation to nurture the offsprings of the Grand Trunk. Well-ordained charity begins at home, and with greater reason when a country is not in a position to meet its own obligations, why should it be responsible for the obligations of others?


Herbert John Mackie: May I ask the hon. member .another question?


David Arthur Lafortune: Go ahead.


Herbert John Mackie: Is it not true that the
hon. member is the endorser of a note made by the Grand Trunk company, and-


David Arthur Lafortune: I, the endorser! I
beg your pardon. I am not the endorser of the Grand Trunk company as my learned friend claims I am; he honours me too highly, and my credit is not good to that extent. On the other hand, it is fortunate for me that I am not the endorser, because I should have to suffer for it. One must not rejoice over the misfortunes of one's neighbour, but .after all, we are not concerned with the deficits of that company. That, company was organized with the help of English capital and it is up to those capitalists to see what they have to do with their stock and their company. My hon. friend from Edmonton asked me to imake a suggestion. I would only suggest that he vote with us; the country would give him credit for it and his constituents would be grateful to him if he did. He must not forget that he also will have .an account to render, and when his electors come and ask him why he voted for the acquisition of that railway, he will need no less ability than the honourable Minister of the Interior has displayed, in order to defend his case, for it may be somewhat difficult to convince the electors.
Mr. Acting Speaker (Mr. Boivin), we were at one time fighting side by side, but I beg your pardon, I was forgetting that, though we both belonged to the same party, you must nqt be alluded to, as such in, the position which you now hold. However, I may be permitted to recall the discussion which took place when the Government submitted to this House a proposition to

[DOT]do so in a way which is unjust or arbitrary, they will rise against you. So it is with nations; if they are asked to submit to conditions which are arbitrary or unjust, they will forswear allegiance. I should not wish any such thing to happen in this country, but it shall happen. I am ready to abide by the law of my country, I have respect for the ruling power, for my king, hut provided the law is equitable and that I am not discriminated against.
The provincial as well as the Dominion authorities are now looking, and rightly so, to a greater agricultural production, they say to the farmer: "Keep your children at home, retain your sons on the farms, teach them agriculture, stock-raising and farm work generally; show them how to cultivate their farms to advantage, and see to it that the children of the soil do not take the road to the great centres. This we are willing to do, Mr. Speaker, hut if agricultural production is bound to develop, the Government must protect it. The Government has been requested , for many years to help the farmers, the farm-owners reclaim their land, to extend financial aid to the various provinces in order that thousands of acres of land, unproductive heretofore, might be reclaimed. In Ontario as also in Quebec and in the western provinces, there are thousands ot acres of such land, no system has been devised, as yet, to secure efficient irrigation and to promote, in an adequate manner, the cultivation of our farms. If any application is made to the Government, the same old answer inevitably is forthcoming " We cannot help you, for we have no money."
The Government should establish agricultural stations. The experimental farms already in existence are very efficient, they render great service to the country as demonstration farms; the farmers, and I am one of them, request that agricultural stations be established in the main districts of each province, with a view to demonstrating and doing on a .small scale what is done on a larger scale on the farms.
The Government has just made a step in the right, direction, thanks to the persevering efforts of the hon. member for L'Assomp-t.ion, an experimental station was opened recently within the town of L'Assomption, where people will be taught how to grow tobacco, and the electors of Montcalm and of L'Assomption will surely credit Mr. Seguin with having convinced the Government by his work and his perseverance. I ask that a station of this kind be estabfM. Lafortune.]
lished in the constituency which I represent. I should be glad to see an agricultural station located at a short distance from Montreal, where the children of that great centre would come for information and views which would impart a liking for agriculture, and which would be an adjunct to the famous school existing already in the county. I mean the Macdonald school.
I was in presence of our future king, the Prince of Wales, who did us the honour to visit the iMaedonald school and the military hospital at S'ainte Anne de Bellevue, within the limits of the same locality. I asked him to help us change the present conditions, which are so detrimental to our population, and to try and see to it that the farmers' sons were not arrested, hounded, dragged before the courts and thrown in prison, when they are so much needed on our farms.
Agriculture is recognized as being the mainspring of all success. In our country it is surely the most important, the most powerful, the most productive of all industries. The farming industry, if well understood, with the farmers well protected, having at their disposal everything necessary to cultivate their farms, would yield to the iState five times more than it now does, if the 'Government would only help us, if they would establish agricultural stations and provide adequate means of draining and reclaiming our lands.
We have .a beautiful climate in this country, but the summer season is too short. The soil must be rid of its excess moisture from superabundant rains and the work done in proper time, if we are to reap from agriculture the best possible results. We claim no privilege, we ask for nothing unreasonable, but we- think the State should lend us, on rather easy terms, the money requisite to reclaim our lands; then, the crops would, in the very near future, he three or four times what they are now.
The Government which I 'fought and which I am still fighting has occasionally a happy inspiration. For instance, when a delegation of farmers came down here to ask that tobacco growing get better protection, they were met by the hon. minister (Mr. Crerar), who took their request into serious consideration and promised to see to it that the farmers were helped along. The delegation asked that an additional tax be imposed, so as to protect the Canadian tobacco against the foreign article. At the last session the Government made a step in

the right direction, and I give them credit for it; they raised the duty on imports of tobacco from the United States and caused the growing of Canadian tobacco to give better returns, because Canadian tobacco fetched thereafter better prices. The yield is better this year than previously. I say it is necessary to protect the farmer if the country is to get the best possible returns from the farming class, which represents a majority of the whole population.
There are neonle in my county who are much to be pitied; I mean the landowners of Bizard island, the seigniory erstwhile owned by the late F. D. Monk. He had made them a promise, a promise of no mean importance, and one which I am sure he intended to keep, for he was an honourable man and his word was as good as his bond. He had promised them that a bridge would be built between Bizard and Jesus islands. Just imagine people Diving there and unable, for months and months, to come out because no communication is possible at high water and it is dangerous to cross the river in a row-boat. Those people are obliged to wait till the river is clear of ice, and till the waters subside to leave the island to go north to St. Eustache or south to St. Genevieve. It is a dangerous state of things, many have been drowned, and the building of the bridge is advocated on behalf of those good people. As I have just said, Mr. Monk had promised that a bridge would be built, but unfortunately for them, he died prematurely and nothing was done.
Your humble servant, who now lives in that district and who has lived there for thirty-five years, is conversant with the needs of that population. I have told them that, so long as I had the honour to be their representative, I would leave no stone unturned to see to it that they were given a square deal. I have failed, and why? Because the Government kept giving me the same old answer:	"No money". But I
assure you, Mr. Speaker, that a change must be brought about; justice may remain asleep for some time, but not for all the time. There must come a day when public opinion gets its share of sunshine, its share of protection and of justice. I do not lose courage.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


David Arthur Lafortune: The
building of a good national highway from Montreal to Toronto is being rumoured. I wish it were built,- so that I might pay more frequent visits to those Toronto people, whom I love in spite of their more or less
snappy remarks. We still have respect for them, and we should be pleased to have them side with us more frequently, and so get better acquainted.
Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. gentleman who was presiding before you came in, that we well liked the Speaker in former -times, because he used to give us, every session, a small trunk filled with stationery, but that, on financial grounds, you abstain from doing so any longer. I am sorry that our finances are in such a bad way, and that the trunks are withheld-


Andrew Ross McMaster: We are given a "Grand Trunk". . .


David Arthur Lafortune: Yes, it is more than a "trunk", it is a coach.
An hon. MEMBER (translation): Or rather a train. . .


David Arthur Lafortune: There was talk of building a national highway from, Montreal through Soulanges, Vau-dreuil, Jacques Cartier and the neighbouring counties, to Ottawa, and from Ottawa to Toronto. There is an urgent call for that highway. The Government have built up the eastern national highway from Montreal to Quebec, a magnificent road, and now we must have the western national highway. The Government are congratulated, and rightly so, for having built an immense military hospital in the county of Jacques Cartier, in the parish of St. Ann's, opposite the famous McDonald College. There was also an urgent need for that hospital. It is an immense building, indispensable for the welfare of the returned soldiers, the wounded the lame and the disabled; in a word, it is a national hospital. But the soldiers, the wounded and all the medical staff there, are recruited from every part of the country, from Ontario, from the Maritime Provinces and from the South. If there were a national highway from Montreal to Toronto, the relations and friends of those people would take more frequent -trips to this hospital and would profit by those occasions to see what is going on at the great McDonald school which its former owner. Sir W. C. McDonald, built at a cost of millions and millions.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if, instead of using the people's money to help out the shareholders of the Grand Trunk, the Government would contribute towards building -those great national highways, what good we could -do! We would then have an interprovincial highway, and what great advantage it

that all this should happen, because it was Government property.	>
What will be the deficit in next year's budget, as a result of the acquisition of the Grand Trunk? I am afraid it will be enormous. If the hon. gentlemen think that I am in error, let them show it; but I now think, myself, that I .am right, and that it is impossible for the State to operate a railway with any measure of success. Take the municipal corporations. They make all .sorts of by-laws, they try in every possible way to safeguard the people's money, and yet their efforts in that direction are crowned with failure. Why? Because it is public property. They spend all they can, they save nothing, and as a result, deficits .are piled up. Men act in good faith, men are honest. They have no intention to defraud or to rob, but such is their nature that when they have no direct interest they become careless, and we shall have an instance of that when this road becomes the property of the State. Consult business imen, men of experience who have made a success of their own private business; they will tell you they are against this transaction. Would they not be in favour of it if it were really a safe proposition? There are gentlemen in this House who know what work means, who spent their life working regularly and conscientiously, having not a minute of their time to spend for pleasure. They are also opposed to this transaction as being absolutely wrong. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. DMcC.rea) is not the first comer in this House, and I have noted what he said. He got rich through hard work, economy and good management. I know him well, he is a Scotchman, he is independent, and once he gets into his head an idea which he thinks is good, it is useless to try and make him change his mind. Now, here is what the hon. member for Sherbrooke said about the transaction:	"Mr. (Speaker, I cannot
conceive bow free men like the hon. gentlemen sitting on your right can entertain an idea of that kind."
Those men have spent their lives in business .and their judgment is most worthy of our consideration. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if, with respect to a business question like this, I should not defer to their opinion rather than to the opinion of a lawyer? What does the hon. Minister of the Interior know about railways? Let me ask him, with all due deference, what does he know about the management of a

business of that kind? Like myself, he can see the wheels turn, he can see the trains stop at stations, he can see them run, but we are now talking about a transaction which we have to appreciate according to its proper merits, and I should rather depend upon the experience of business men for a notion of what this proposition really means.
When a working man is at work it may seem that anybodu could do his work as easily as he does it himself, but if you try your hand at that work you may alter your ideas. For instance when you see the farm hand holding the plough while at the same time guiding his team of horses, yon may imagine that it is very easy work, but take his place for a while and you will soon find out that there is more in it than you surmised.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, 1 may say that the ideas to which I have given expression have been submitted to this House in a much more proper manner by those who have preceded me in this debate, but I owed it to my electors to stand up here and register my most vigorous protest against this measure. In election time, we are glad, Mr. Speaker, to show our electors that we have raised out voice in their behalf, that we have taken their interests at heart., and that if our advice has not been heeded, we are not to he blamed. If unfortunately I have not succeeded in niv task, my conscience however is clear and I shall not be afraid to stand before them and claim absolution. Those brave electors of ours generally reproach us with not having voiced their feelings under such circumstances; they believe that it is sufficient for us to speak and that everybody will give heed to our advice. They are egregiously mistaken, for it is not so easy a task as they are apt, to believe.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appeal once more to the conscience of the hon. gentlemen opposite, in behalf of the country cf my choice. I hope that they still entertain within themselves a sense of justice and that before coming to a division upon this unfortunate proposal, they will give it all the attention it deserves.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I also give thanks to the hon. gentlemen who have just listened to my remarks.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: I was paired with the hon. member for Yarmouth and Clare (Mr. Spinney). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Charles Marcil: I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. W. F. KAY:: I was paired with the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie). Had I voted I would have voted for the amend-' ment.


Mr. W. C. KENNEDY:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was paired with the hon. member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR (Queens, P.E.I.):: I was paired with the hon. member for

Lanark. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 39 (From the Senate), for the relief of Robert Stephenson Carson.-Mr. Hocken.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways) for the third reading of Bill No. 33, respecting the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway system.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prince):: 
John Dowsley Reid: What date is that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Friday, October 31.
While the McCormick resolution does not mention any particular railway that may become the property of the Dominion Government, the Illinois -Senator said the object was to deal with the situation that presented itself in connection with the action of the Canadian Par liament in passing a Bill to acquire possession of the Grand Trunk System.
I shall not read the rest of the article except the closing paragraph:
Congress has always been jealous of foreign control of any corporations, especially involving means of communication in this country, and special legislation has been enacted in recent years against the ownership of the majority stock of domestic corporations by alien interests. Similar legislation has been enacted against the ownership of land by aliens.
These laws may be held applicable to the Grand Trunk case, and it is not considered improbable that opposition would be aroused against retention of control of the 1,500 miles of track by the Canadian Government.

I submit that the article suggests an entirely reasonable attitude on the part of the United States. Imagine the proposition reversed. Imagine, as I have said, that we were learning for the first time that the Government of the United States was about to take over the Grand Trunk Railway system in this country and operate it, would we be indifferent to the transaction? Would the Parliament of Canada view with indifference the Government of the United States coming into this country and owning and operating a railway system within it? If we ourselves would take up a matter of that kind in a serious way have we not every reason to believe that the Government of the United States will be actuated by the same kind of motives in protecting the interests of their citizens? And if there is reason to believe that this question is likely to be one which will involve the two countries in, at least international negotiations, if not international complications, is it not the part of wisdom that these negotiations should be carried out before this matter is finally consummated, and that this Parliament should have a direct assurance recorded in the agreement which is to be drawn between the Grand Trunk Railway company and the Government that any embarrassment, or the possibility of any embarrassment between the two countries will not result from that transaction.
Now, Sir, not only is the agreement important from the point of view of the dtaount concerned and from the point of view of the properties concerned, but the principle which is involved is perhaps the most important and far-reaching of any which this Parliament will be called upon to discuss. I submit, Sir, that so far in this debate we have been unable to discover that this measure is entitled to be correctly viewed as a measure of government ownership and control. The most that we can say about it is, that from certain aspects it is a measure of government ownership; from other aspects it is certainly a measure of private ownership because the greater part of the stock remains in the hands of the private shareholders. It is a measure of transfer of control in the management of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to a commission appointed by the Government to administer the national railways; but as one hon. member this afternoon well said, the measure, in the form in which it has been drafted and brought down, presents the combined defects of government owner-

ship and private ownership and omits the virtues which belong to either of these methods of control separately exercised. I think the member to whom I refer spoke of the measure as amphibious on account of its being neither one thing mo-r the other. I think we might with equal appropriateness describe it as a hybrid affair; it is in part government ownership, it is in part private ownership but, as I have said, it lacks the value or the merit of real government ownership and has its defects. Those who advocate government ownership do so because they believe that they are getting rid of operation for the sake of profit, and securing cost. In order words they seek to get rid of paying out dividends to private sbadeholders, and through the possession of a property by public ownership seek to reserve for the public the moneys which -would otherwise be payable in dividends so that the benefit of the undertaking may go to the public in a reduction of rates. But this measure perpetuates the payments to private shareholders. It guarantees payments which, at the present time and in the past, have not been made, and so much-merit as a government ownership scheme in the truest sense would have is lacking altogether in this particular measure. Private ownership has the advantage that it stimulates watchfulness in management. The shareholders, from the fact that their returns are dependent on the efficiency of management, take an interest in the working of a concern and see that it is carried on in the most efficient way. By thlis measure all that incentive is taken away. The Government guarantees to the shareholders the dividends that they are to receive, and their interest in watching the undertaking from the point of view of efficiency in management is entirely gone. So we say that in a transaction of this kind, where the whole matter is as uncertain and doubtful in its particulars as this measure appears to be, there is the strongest reason why we should see the agreement that is about to be drafted and learn whether in as many particulars as possible it safeguards the public interest.
Indeed, I should like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this measure that we may well pause, having in view the experience of the world in the matter of railway management, and ask ourselves the question whether it is best to jump from a monopoly of control on the part of capital to a monopoly of control on the part of the

state or whether it is not possible to work out some plan which will have fuller regard for all the interests which are involved in great industrial concerns. Looking at the United States and its management of railways we find that under Government control there the scheme has failed lamentably as a solution of the problem of rates or costs, of benefits to the consumers or to the public. Looking at the experience of England we see that the Government management of roads there has not been a success in any way towards solving the difficult problems of the relations of the parties to industry that are very certain to arise in these big undertakings. The strikes on the railway systems in England a few weeks ago showed clearly that under a system of monopoly of control by the state, when a great body of workmen went out, there was a condition which put the labour forces of the country in an attitude of apparent hostility to the government of the country as a whole and laid the basis of what might seem to be a great class war.
Now, with these examples before Parliament, is it wise to plunge into a scheme which seems to present such possibilities, without considering more carefully and in detail whether, instead of thus seeking to get rid of a monopoly of control by capital by establishing a monopoly of control on the part of the state, we might not work out some system of joint control whereby the interests of capital, and of labour, and of the state would be more effectively conserved with greater benefit to all concerned? I submit that while no one scheme could be worked out quickly, through the submission to Parliament of an agreement such as might be drafted in accordance with this principle there would be opportunity for suggestions that might be of lasting benefit to all parties concerned.
My hon. friends opposite have repeatedly said that we on this side have had no alternative to offer. Well, if we have had no alternative it has been, perhaps, because we have sought to follow advice we are giving, and not rush 'into any half-baked scheme without giving a matter of such enormous importance the careful consideration that it deserves. It would be most unwise for any body of men to seak to offer, on the spur of the moment, a scheme which has for its purpose the solution of the railway problems of the country. The only proper way to approach a subject of this kind is to permit as much as possible in the way of debate and to allow as much as possible
in the way of expressed opinion on the part of the public.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, now that the Government have determined to go on with this measure and to enter into this contract, we hope that they will at least pause to this extent: That while proceeding at once with the agreement, they will give the public the assurance that when the agreement is drawn they will submit it to Parliament so that the people will have an opportunity of knowing the degree to which they are being bound and of expressing themselves upon it before they are committed to it for all time.
Sir, that course is necessary and desirable for the reasons that I have mentioned-the enormous size of the transaction, the vastness and complexity [DOT] of the undertaking, and the great significance of the principle involved. It is also desirable, when you stop to consider the extent of the liabilities which we are immediately assuming at a time when we are finding it extremely difficult to raise the money necessary to the carrying on of the ordinary business of the country. At this moment an effort is being made by the Government to raise a loan of $390,000,000 to meet current expenses. I wonder if it is appreciated throughout the country that every cent of that money has already been borrowed from the banks and that every cent of the loan will simply go to pay back the bankers who have been advancing money to hon. gentlemen opposite for the carrying on of the business of the country? We are told that in order to meet existing obligations, to say nothing of new obligations, we shall soon have to go again to the people and asTi for another loan of three hundred odd millions. Well, in the face of that situation, with that knowledge and that information before us, why should this particular moment of all moments be chosen to saddle upon the taxpayers of this country additional liabilities amounting to many millions.
Another reason why this agreement, when it is drafted, should be submitted to Parliament is that apparently the Government are unwilling to allow the award of the Board of Arbitrators respecting the value of certain of the stocks to be submitted to Parliament for ratification. As I have already pointed out, the stocks involved in this transaction are of two kinds. First, there are the interest stocks, amounting to $216,207,138, on which there is to be an annual interest payment of $9,500,000. That, we know, we shall have to meet; that much

is certain knowledge. But in addition to thalt there are dividend stocks amounting to $180,424,325. Now, what these stocks are worth we do not know. All that we know is that they are to be submitted to arbitration; thalt arbitrators are to give a value to them and that when they are valued the Government is to give to the holders of these stocks certificates equivalent in value to the valuation which is placed upon them by the Board of Arbitrators. We have no information, we have not been table to get from the Government any information, as to the basis on which that valuation is to proceed. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the agreement which is to be drawn between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government should contain the basis on which that valuation is to be made. We do not know whether it is to be on the basis of the market value of the stocks at a given time, and, if so, what that given time may be. We do not know whether it is to be on the physical assets of the company, and, if so, whether it is to be on the basis of what it would cost to reproduce the system to-day, having regard to the increased cost of labour and material, or on the basis of the cost at the time the road was constructed. We have nothing to indicate to what extent the possible or prospective increment is to be taken into account in giving a valuation to these stocks. Sir, the amount to which this country will become liable will depend in direct ratio upon what is stipulated in the agreement in these particulars. If the Government are unwilling, as I understand they are, to refer to Parliament for its approval The valuation to be placed upon these stocks by the Board of Arbitrators, they should be at least willing to submit to Parliament the agreement between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and itself in which will be set forth the basis on which this award is to be made. It is for that reason, among others, that I urge as strongly as I can that this agreement be made subject to ratification by Parliament.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have pointed out that from a legal point of view it is unwise to suggest the submission of a certain proposition to a board of arbitrators and then ask for the right to pass upon the award. Well, I am ready to go so far as to say that if the Government are prepared to submit this agreement to Parliament so that Parliament will know on what basis this valuation is to take place, so that Parliament will be able to make at least some estimate of the amount to which the country 
is to be committed for all time, there would be strong reason for not urging that the award of the arbitrators be submitted to Parliament for its approval. But in the absence of an assurance of that kind, when a contract involving the vast sums which this contract involves is about to be entered into, it seems to me that as trustees of the people it is not merely our right, it is our duty, to surround the transaction with every precaution which it is possible for us to devise.
I wish to direct the attention of hon. members to a further reason which will, I am sure, appeal to every member of the House irrespective of the party to which he belongs. The Bill as drafted gives to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company the right to call a special meeting for the purpose of approving the agreement between the company and the Government If it is a right and proper thing to permit the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to pass upon an agreement entered into between the Government and that company, it is equally proper and equally necessary that the same right be given to the Canadian taxpayers through their representatives in this Parliament.
It is a tendency of human nature to be very generous when dealing with other people's money, a little more generous than one often is when dealing with one's own. Another tendency very often met with is to do for others what one is not prepared to do for one's own people. We find that sometimes in individual homes; men are ready to go outside of their homes and do more for others than they will do for their own families. If there is to be charity at all, let us remember the old maxim: " Charity begins at home." No one on this side has advocated that there should be anything other than absolute fairness and justice as between the shareholders in England and the taxpayers in this country, but what we claim is that each is entitled to the same measure and method of treatment. If a stranger had visited the galleries of this House without knowing the nature of the assembly or the debate that was going on, he would very soon have gathered the impression that sitting on the Government benches opposite were directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company defending the interests of the shareholders across the sea, and that on this side were representatives of the people of Canada looking after their interests. I would say further that if the Government persists in refusing to give to the taxpayers of Canada the same rights

as they give to the English shareholders, not merely the stranger in the gallery, but the people throughout this Dominion from one end to the other will have reason to believe that such is the case.
A great deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the widows and orphans in the Old Country who are going to suffer unless the arbitration goes, as the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) himself has suggested, in a generous way for the shareholders on the other side. I do not wish to add anything to the " widow and orphan " argument excepting to point out that, while hon. gentlemen opposite have been careful to speak about the widows and orphans in England, they have forgotten to mention that after all there are only a comparatively few widows and orphans who hold shares in the Grand Trunk Railway Company, but amongst the taxpayers of this country, who are the other party to this transaction, there is not a widow nor an orphan in the whole Dominion who will not have to pay some part of the cost of this transaction. I would also like to point out that while a great deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite of the widows and orphans in the Old Country, they have said nothing whatever about the speculators whom the hon. member for York South (Mr. W. F. Maclean) spoke of yesterday as sweating the King's coinage and who hold some of the stock of this company. They have said nothing about the plutocrats and aristocrats who are holding privileged positions on account of being able to draw dividends, whether provided by governments or otherwise. Therefore, in this particular we can well afford to drop out of account consideration of who are the holders and who are not the holders of this stock. It woud be interesting, however, and of advantage to hon. members and to the people of this country to know -who were holding stock in this company when this matter came before Parliament first and who have secured stock since. That might throw a great deal of light on the haste with which the Government are proceeding in connection with this measure. But apart from whoever those persons may be, there is only one basis on which any board of arbitration is justified in dealing with this matter, and that is to deal with it on the basis of what is right irrespective of who the parties may be, and of giving to the people of this country the same rights as are reserved to the shareholders of the company.
I ask hon. gentlemen opposite-and I appeal to them as representatives from their
different constituencies of the people ot Canada-in considering this amendment to think of their responsibility to the people as the other party to this transaction. The Board of Directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company have been thinking of the shareholders; in drawing up this agreement with the Government, they have been emphasizing the interest of the shareholders. We have an opportunity in this Parliament on this side of the water to stand up for the taxpayers of this country; the first duty of every member of Parliament is to protect the interest of his constituents, and there is not a man in this House who can for a moment feel that he is doing other than his duty by his constituents in advocating that the agreement should be submitted to Parliament in order that the people of Canada may have exactly the same rights in the matter of the ultimate approval of the agree-* ment as the shareholders have.
A course of that kind would be a great strength to the Government in drafting the agreement. I am sure that when the Minister of Railways and the Minister of the Interior meet Sir Alfred Smithers and the gentlemen associated with him they are continually confronted in the course of their transactions with the remark: Yes, yes, we would be glad to do this and to do that; but we have to think of the shareholders; we have to remember that this agreement when drafted will go back and be submitted to a special meeting of the shareholders, and that it must be ratified there, and while we would like to proceed in such a way, we cannot do that in virtue of the fact that the agreement must be submitted to them for ratification. It would be a great help to my hon. friends to be able to reply to Sir Alfred Smithers that they too have to consider the fact that the agreemelit has to be brought before Parliament and the people of this country. Having that position and being strengthened in it, they will certainly as a result of it effect a bargain which will be better for the people of this country and at any rate one which will have more of the confidence of the people behind it.
Just to conclude this part of my argument, I would^ again submit that that is the only right and proper method of dealing with trust funds. After all, the ministry is not handling its own money; it is dealing with the money of the people of this country, and that is something that I am afraid hon. gentlemen opposite some-

times forget. They go through with a great transaction of this kind without ever considering that the funds involved are not funds that belong to them, but funds that belong to the people of this country; that for the time being they are honoured and entrusted with the position of trustees. Therefore, I urge them to rise to the occasion as their great opportunity and to meet their position of trusteeship in the way in which it would be met in the every day walks of life. There is not a member in this House who would be willing ini a transaction-I do not care how small you like to make it, the purchase of a house or a farm-to leave to the other party in the transaction the approval or disapproval of the agreement drawn and deprive himself of an equal right. Therefore, I say to hon. gentlemen opposite: In the discharge of your public duties, be actuated by the same motives that you would be actuated by in handling your private affairs.
If that disposes' of the argument on the score of this being a business transaction, let me now appeal on the ground of what is due to PaT'iament. Let me appeal +o hon. gentlemen opposite to uphold the rights and duties and obligations of Parliament. May I remind them that the execu-except what it derives from Parliament, that it has nc authority and no rights except what it derives from Parliament, any more than Parliament has any rights and powers except those it derives from the people. So I say to the ministry. Inasmuch as we stand here as the representatives of the people and as you stand there deriving your authority from this House and this Parliament, yon should come back with this agreement when it is drawn and submit it to the people's representatives for their approval and ratification, just as the directors of the Grand Trunk will submit it to the shareholders of the company.
Sir, the war has had the effect of producing two tendencies that are all too obvious in the method by which the Government is proceeding, and has got into the habit of proceeding. There are two tendencies which war produces: one is to do everything in haste and the other is to do everything, as far as possible, by independent executive authority with as little reference to other sources as possible. Those methods may be excusable in times of war; they may be more than excusable, they may be necessary. But they are neither excusable nor necessary when you get out of times of war into times of peace, and it is

desirable that any of these habits into which the ministry may have fallen in the last four years through force of circumstances should be abandoned as quickly as possible, and that we should get back again to the normal method of proceeding, conserving to Parliament the rights which are the most highly prized of all that Parliament possesses.
Take this session as an example, if you will, in regard to both these tendencies. The session was called to deal with the Peace Treaty. Why, before the Peace Treaty was distributed, this House was told that it was a matter of such great urgency that we must proceed with it at once, that hon. members must give their final pronouncement upon it without having had the opportunity to peruse it carefully. What have we seen? Long after this Parliament bad disposed of its part in ratifying the Peace Treaty, along comes England, then France, and Italy, the great European nations that were involved in the war, to do their part in ratifying the Treaty. Even they did not feel the urgency and the haste which this Parliament exhibited. Here the Treaty was brought down and had to be dealt with hurriedly and gotten through with expeditiously at all costs. We have this Grand Trunk legislation before us now. To-morrow we will have possibly the Bill dealing with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and what position are we in? Already there has been introduced into the House a form of closure in morning sittings, which have always been one means of bring|ing Parliament to an end.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but I would ask them what other reason is there for morning sittings unless they are intended to bring the session of Parliament to a final termination? So the answer we received from the Government when we asked for time to deliberate this measure was the introduction of morning sittings, which is a form of closure, in order to shut off further discussion on this transaction,
I would further point out that when the Government brought down the Treaty they brought it down to all intents and purposes, at any rate, according to the Government professions, because they believed Parliament had a duty to perform in approving it. There was a transaction which, while it related to Canada certainly in a most important way related also in very large measure to foreign conditions on, the other

side of the ocean. If it was desirable for Parliament to ratify the agreement between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, it is equally desirable that a transaction of this kind, which affects Canada from one end to the other and will affect the taxpayers of this country from one generation to another, should also be ratified by this Parliament. May I point out that when, under the former Administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Grand Trunk was entering into an agreement with the Government in regard to the National Transcontinental railway, the Government of that day brought down the agreement, and one clause of it provided that the agreement should be submitted to Parliament and be subject to its ratification. Hon. gentlemen opposite did not follow that method when they came to deal with Mackenzie & Mann and to take over the Canadian Northern, and we all know in what dissatisfaction that whole agreement resulted. 1 would suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite that they follow at this time the better precedent, and submit the agreement to Parliament in order that it may be ratified.
When one stops to think of the extent and magnitude of this transaction, of the obligations the country is incurring, of the vastness of the princip'e involved, of the position of the shareholders in England in relation to our own Canadian taxpayers, and the like, is there not the strongest reason why the country should be as fully informed as possible on this transaction before it is finally consummated.
Public opinion has not yet had an opportunity to express itself to anything like the extent that it should on a measure of this importance. What .are three short weeks in which to consider a momentous transaction such as this? I would also draw attention to the fact that throughout this whole discussion we have not heard the voice of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden); he has been away. We have! hardly heard the voice of the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), or of a single minister of the Crown exceut the three who spoke at the outset, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) the Minister of the Interior (Mr. M"dghen) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell).


John Dowsley Reid: You have not been able
to digest what we gave you.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I quite'admit the truth of that. I do not think any one
has, inasmuch as my hon. friend has told us that he has not been able to digest this transaction in full himself. He has repeatedly said that he is unable to say this or that. I would also draw the attention of the House to the fact that one or two members on the other side have told the House that when they got up to speak on this transaction the minister frowned on them and they were led to believe they were not to speak on a measure of this kind. I submit that that is not the proper attitude for members of Parliament in discussing a measure of this kind.
Just one word more. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been fond of saying on different occasions that they have had a mandate to do .a particular thing. In the days when they were in Opposition they were fond of saying to the Government in power. "You have no mandate from the people. You should not go on". I ask them if they had any mandate on this measure. There has been no mandate whatever for this Government to proceed with this particular transaction. This Parliament was elected in refe ence to the winning of the war, and this session was called in reference to the Treaty of Peace. Both of these objects have been fulfilled, and now the Government, without submitting any particulars of this transaction to the people until, not the eleventh hour, but within five minutes of the twelfth hour, proceed to rush this measure through at all costs.
The Minister of the Interior the other evening, when the proposal was put before the House that the award of the arbitrators should he subject to the final approval by Parliament, said that was a. Bolshevist proposal. Let me tell him that he is mistaken as to the origin of Bolshevism. Bolshevism has never had its origin in submitting to the people's representatives a mat er wh'ch affects the people. It has had its origin in the arbitrary acts of autocratic executives, and if he and hon. gentlemen opposite want to foster in. this country Bolshevism or movements akin to Bolshevism they will persist in arbitrary acts by their autocratic Executive forcing everything through by Order in Council and refusing to give the people's representatives in parliament the rights to which they are justly entitled.
Sir, I am only too conscious ,of the fact . that I have been unable to present this important matter in the way in which it should be presented.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friends say, "Hear, Hear," and for that reason. I shall ask them to ponder seriously these two .considerations when they come to east theif vote on the amendment. I appeal to them as business men who are concerned in this Parliament with great business transactions, to be just as cautious in the administration of public affairs, and just as prudent and honest as they would be in the management of their own private business. I appeal to them on the further ground, as members of parliament elected to express the will of the people in this House of Commons, and chosen by the people to keep the ministry responsible to parliament, that they consider above all else at this time their duty to make this parliament the expression of the will of the people, and to make the Executive responsible to parliament in the fullest sense of the word. I move, seconded by the hon, member for Antigonish and Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair):
That this Bill be not now read a third time but that it be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to amend same by adding to Section 2, the following:
** The agreement herein shall be submitted
to and be subject to ratification by the
Parliament of Canada.'*


Andrew Ross McMaster: 
John Hampden Burnham: In the course of ordinary business, when you make up your mind to buy property, you set out the terms, as this is set out, and then go to the owner of the house and say to him: "Will you accept my offer?" There is therefore no necessity for ratification on the part of the man making the offer.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I may reply to my hon. friend by asking a question: If my hon. and learned friend, in his capacity as a solicitor, were buying a house or a farm for a client, would he not wish his principal to see the agreement of sale before he put his name to it?


John Hampden Burnham: If I had a power of attorney to transact business for that man I would go on and transact it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: My hon. and learned friend has fallen into the error which I am sorry to see prevailing in this House, namely, of supposing that the hon. gentlemen composing the Cabinet are furnished with an irrevocable power of attorney. This is not the case; they have no power of attorney. They are a Committee of the House,

and in all matters of real importance they should come back to the House for ratification of whatever they propose to do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons why we should see the agreement in connection with this transaction. The first is that, a*s I believe, the interests of the Canadian people have not been fully safeguarded in the Bill itself. While the Bill-was in Committee, I asked the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) this question: Why do you not submit to arbitration the value of the four per cent guaranteed stock? He answered me very frankly that the Government would have liked to submit it to arbitration but the company was not prepared to do so. That is a frank statement, hut it is not a satisfactory answer, because the Grand Trunk railway was absolutely unable to meet their obligations, and the Government, if they proved recalcitrant, had merely to say: We will withhold all further aid from you. And then, according to the termsof the Drayton-Acworth report, the railway would not have been able to carry on. I say, therefore, that the Government had absolutely the whip-hand in the matter, and it was for them to impose upon the railway such terms-I do not ask that they should be unjust, but such terms within the limits of justice-as they deemed necessary for the protection of the Canadian people.
Then I believe that the Government should have been willing to make the arbitration subject to submission to Parliament.
I remember when that was suggested the Minister of the Interior said:	Well, why
have an arbitration at all? I would have much preferred, had the Government decided to buy this railway, that they should have made a bargain with the railway company subject to the approval of this House rather than submit the value of its stock to arbitration, because our experience in the acquisition of the Canadian Northern was most unfortunate. We found ourselves obliged to pay, under the award of the arbitrators, some $10,000,000 for stock which Sir Henry Drayton, Mr. Acworth and Air. Smith said represented no real value or investment whatever. I would have much preferred, if we are going to have an arbitration, to have had the price of these stocks fixed and referred to the House. The Minister of the Interior said that would not be an arbitration. In one sense it would not be an arbi-tion. It w'ould be what we call in the province of Quebec an expertise. It happens quite often in a lawsuit in our province that a judge will refer a technical matter to experts. These experts will bring in their report, but the report is not necessarily adopted by the judge. The party in whose favour the report is drafted moves for the homologation or acceptance of the report while the other side moves to reject the report. With the facts that the experts have found before the court it is in a better position to judge of the matter and decide upon it Such might have been done in this case.
These aie some of the facts which lead me to ask members of this House to agree to the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Prince. After all is it not a reasonable thing? Are we not reasonable men? We should be reasonable men. I would support the amendment of my hon. friend from Prince very heartily and commend it to the wisdom and prudence of my fellow members.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I had intended rising when the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) took his seat but the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) anticipated me and I did not have that privilege. The courtesies of debate require that an address in this House delivered by one occupying the conspicuous position the leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition shall receive at all events the attention of a reply even though that address be little more than a repetition, perhaps for the tenth time, of the same remarks uttered by himself as well as by many of his followers.
The congratulations of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House are due however to the leader of the Opposition by reason of the very manifest evidence of the determination on the part of his followers to show fidelity to his leadership-evidence that came frequently to our ears in the way of applause and which was all the more pronounced and impressive when we recall the long succession of demagogic platitudes that evoked that applause. He read a lecture which he has read, I think, every time he has stood upon his feet since he entered the House about duties to the people of members of the Government and members of this House, duties that I venture in all humility to suggest every hon. member of this House was thoroughly aware of, thoroughly conscious of, long before the House received this rather nauseating reminder from the hon. gentleman.	-
If I have one suggestion to offer to the fair rose of expectancy of His Majesty's loyal Opposition; it is that when we have a concrete subject before the House for de-

bate he would be good enough to offer some remarks which really bear upon the merits of the issue and leave out of consideration, if he possibly can, these old, hackneyed phrases " democracy " '' autocracy of executives" and all the rest of it which have no more relevancy to this discussion than were he to discuss the merits of the government of Japan.
What is his amendment? He moves in this House that the agreement which Parliament is now asked to ratify shall be hereafter again submitted to this Parliament. He tells us that unless that is done it is an exercise of autocratic power on the part of the Executive, a denial of the rights of the people, a granting to the other parties to the bargain of privileges they should not receive and a refusal to follow the wholesome precedents that have been established in days gone by. He took occasion' to call to the attention of the House one of those precedents, the action of His Majesty's Government in 1903 in introducing the Grand Trunk Pacific bargain. There are two methods, as I have pointed out more than once, by which the Government might take authority for this action from Parliament. The one method is to meet the other party to the bargain, discuss and arrive at terms, write down the letter and the sentence, have the commitment complete; and then, with hands tied and feet bound, come to Parliament and say: "Take it or leave it." That is one method. Another method is to come to Parliament, lay before Parliament the general propositions, the general principles, the basis of agreement, ask Parliament to supplement these wherever it may be necessary or wherever in the judgment of Parliament they can in fairness to the public interest be improved and then seek authority in that way. I have never known or read in this Parliament or any other of the two methods being adopted. I defy and challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to bring me an instance from this Parliament, from the British Parliament, from the American Congress or from the Parliament of any civilized state, of both being regarded as necessary.
That being so, let us come to the discussion of which is preferable. I have stated the one and I have stated the other. Now I appeal to the reasonable 'men amongst the hon. members of this House: Which do they prefer? Is there an hon. member who listens to me now who would prefer that th eGovernment, the Executive of this country, should come asking the 
authority of Parliament after the consummation of the negotiations, asking for authority after the negotiations are completed, signed and sealed, rather than to come to Parliament with the general basis .of the negotiations, with the principles of these propositions and then let Parliament try to amend or improve them as Parlia-[DOT] ment may be advised? .
Which is the better position to place Parliament in? Which is the more just to hon. members of this House? Which is the fairer to the representatives of the people? Which is the more in consonance with democratic principles? Yes, in 1903 the other course was pursued on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I do not wonder that as a consequence there are hon. members of this House who to-day stand up and frankly say that though in 1903 they supported, as followers of the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, the negotiations and the transactions at that time they have since had reason to repent their course in sackcloth and ashes. They have repented it, and there is no Canadian who does not repent it. " Oh, yes," hon. gentlemen say, " just do what we did in 1903?" It is because the Government of that time did what hon. gentlemen recommended in 1903 that there is $590,000,000 of unnecessary debt hanging around the neck of this country to-day. It is because of what they did and the way they did it that we have the accumulation of disasters that hangs around us now and that demands the drastic treatment we are now presenting. " Oh, says the hon. gentleman " give us a little time. We are asked for an alternative but for the life of us we cannot tell you one. This is a half-baked proposition, that is what we have to say about it; give us a little time to bake and then we will show you what we can produce." How much time did hon. gentlemen opposite give in 1903? How much time was possible under the method they followed and which we are now recommended to follow again? We stated the substance of these proposals to Parliament a year and six months ago. We notified Parliament of our policy. We advised this country of the path we were treading and of the goal that we sought, not in general vague terms, we pointed out the destination definitely and finally. Is that statement denied? That is what we did on the 15th day of May, 1918, through the voice of the Prime Minister of Canada. That is what we repeated the _ following	session	through the	voice ^ of
the	Minister of Finance, reading
the terms line for line from commencement

to the end. Previous to that we had given, notice to the country of the difficulties that confronted the Government and we appointed a commission of experts to recommend a course	to be followed. That
commission	made	a recommendation
and its recommendation-along the lines we are following now step by step, line by line-has been before the people of the country for more than two years. What did hon. gentlemen do in 1903? How many hon. members of this House who were citizens of Canada at that time heard of the Grand Trunk Pacific deal two years befo -e it was consummated? Whoever heard it mentioned-did any one hear it mentioned one year before it was consummated? Did any one hear a notification from hon. gentlemen opposite or from any hon. gentleman who sits on the Opposition now or from any hon. member in the House six months before it was consummated. Not a voice; not a whisper; not a warning; not *a note. Did any hon. gentlemen hear, even two weeks before that agreement was brought into this House signed, and sealed and final, a single word as to what the agreement contained, or even an advice that such an agreement was in contemplation? Thht agreement was brought down on the 30th day of July, 1903, all complete. It was not half-baked, it was all baked- it was baked and burnt and crusted, On the 13th day of March, 1903, Parliament was called and the speech from the Throne' was delivered. Did the speech from the Throne even contain an intimation that a Grand Trunk Pacific bargain was to be entered into or that the Government contemplated such a policy? Was any such intimation to be found there? I have the speech before me. Can the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) enlighten me before I read it? He is one of those who complain of haste and "jamming" in connection with this legislation to-day. So does the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster)-they are all complaining about it-and all acknowledging in the very same breath that nothing unfavourable can be said about the whole transaction and apologizing for speaking as a consequence. There was some reference to transportation in the speech from the Throne in 1903, and I warn hon. gentlemen to prepare themselves until I read that reference. It brings a weird memory with it, especially when one recalls the new commission policy recommended to this House by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding). Here is the reference, here is the 108
notification that, was given to Parliament on that occasion:
The great influx of population into our Northwestern territories and the very large additional areas of fertile land which are being brought under cultivation combine to further press upon us the need for increased transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products; to the markets of the world, through Canadian channels.
Now we come to the gem:
The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my Government will immediately appoint a Commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
Who was the commission that hon. gentlemen opposite appointed in pursuance of that speech from the Throne? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the commission they appointed. They appointed a commission to build the National Transcontinental railway in pursuance of a signed contract brought down on the 30th day of July. They had a policy in 1903 appointing a commission, but it was confined to the speech from the Throne. In practice, the policy was to sign and seal the agreement, throw it into Parliament for a. "yes" or "no"-certainly in that case a "yes"-then go ahead and bind the country, tie it hand and foot and burden it with debt for generations; whereas instead of that they had promised us a commission of inquiry. No wonder the hon. gentleman suggests a commission to us now. They planted in 1903 the forbidden fruit of which we are now reaping the consequences, and although they promised a commission of inquiry they never gave it. They planted it and committed this country to the policy without notice, warning or notification; and now, in 1919, after a commission of the best experts this country could name has inquired fully as to what to do to extricate us from the embarrassments in which those hon. gentlemen plunged us, after one commission has been appointed they go on asserting that a policy of one commission is not enough; it diid not need a commission to tie us to these embarrassments hut it needs two commissions to get us out 'of them. They also say "Let us see the agreement later on, and if you deny us the right to look at the agreement it is an exercise of autocratic insolence and is inconsistent with what we understand by democracy." It is vain to point examples to hon. gentlemen opposite. It is vain to show them over and over again that this is the ratification; that we are the representatives of the people; that even admitting they are representatives of the people themselves-in the



modesty of his nature the leader of the Opposition assured us that he and the gentlemen around him constitute the representatives of the people ol this country-here is the Bill for ratification by these representatives of the people and for consideration and determination by them. What could be more democratic than that? If the hon. gentleman will not grant us the honour of representing the people of Canada surely he will continue, to assume that honour for himself.
He says that they represent the people, but here is a Bill for ratification by the people. Unless the people's representatives ratify it, it cannot go through; where is the absence of democracy? It is vain to point out to him that any modification that hon. members here, representatives of the people, want in this Bill can be made. If they want to put in any modification that they think fair and right and square and honourable, that can be done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the hon. gentleman say now on what basis the arbitrators are to value this stock? Will he give the House an assurance on that point at this stage so that we may know now on what basis the valuation is to be made?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman evidently did not know what I was talking about; if he did, he is very anxious to get me off the point that I was making. I was asking him if we did not represent the people and whether in deciding on the agreement as embodied in this Bill, we were not speaking for the people of Canada. If he wants to put in some basis to submit to this Parliament, some basis that is to guide and direct and restrain and constrain the arbitrators, let him submit it; now is the time; he might just as well submit it now as at the next session. Why has he not an amendment like that? It would mean something; it would not involve a tedious repetition of what he has advanced over and over again, as does the amendment which he submits now. If he thinks that there are some principles that we should lay down for the guidance and restraint of the arbitrators, let him get up in this House and suggest those principles. It is our judgment-I have said already that it is my judgment-that the principles of equity and law by which . the arbitrators will otherwise be bound are good enough and are right and are best; that they are better than any principles that we could possibly at the moment devise. It is our belief that in the hands of the Chief Justice of the Exchequer Court of

Canada, to whom has been committed for years the determination of values as between the people of Canada on the one hand and individual owners on the other, and who has discharged that duty subject to the laws of equity and of justice that have come down through generations-it is our belief that into his hands this can well be committed, subject to those laws of equity and those principles of justice.
The hon. member says that he wants the agreement submitted here because a certain agreement was submitted in 1903. Well, I have defined the course that was pursued in 1903, and I have asked hon. membe'rs to weigh the merits of the one course as against the merits of the other. I am going to say just one thing more. When the hon. gentleman states that in no case has Parliament, after laying down the determining principles in just as great detail as Parliament desired, authorized the Government, upon those foundation principles, to build in the details that were necessary, he speaks without the faintest knowledge of history.
I have dealt with that point in this House over and over again. I have quoted statutes wherein the Government of which my hon. friend was a member did that time and again-did it in 1903, did it in 1908, did it in 1910, did it, I venture to say-I did not look at the statutes-every year during which they were in power. That is the regular course that is pursued whenever a Government comes to this Parliament for authorization and ratification first and does not choose the far less desirable way of binding and tying the feet of the country and then coming to Parliament for ratification. On many occasions that has been done. It was done in the Canadian Northern arrangements which hon. gentlemen opposite made in 1910;' done in similar-arrangements in 1908, done in similar arrangements in 1903. There is nothing new about this. There is no reason why there should be an appeal to the high principles of democracy on the part of the leader of the Opposition. Why did he not make these appeals when he was Minister of Labour in 1910 and when they might have had some effect on his leader of that day? We did not notice very much struggling then on the part of the hon. member in an effort to drive into the intellects of autocratic members of this House a proper sense of the principles of democracy. He sat by while this very thing was being done then, every year during which he was in office.
I do not suppose he noticed it; nobody did.

Two years ago, in 1917, when the Canadian Northern negotiations were before this House and the same course was pursued as is pursued to-day; when the general principles that were to be the basis of arbitration and the agreement of arbitration were laid before this Parliament for the consideration of hon. members, did the leader of the Opposition of that day rise and find fault on the ground that there was not the power to insert such details and work them out to completion? Not at all. He knew that that was the regular plan; he knew that that was always done. He knew that that plan had never been abused under his Government or under the Government then in office; had not been abused at any time in the history of the country. Was it abused in the case of the agreement that was prepared following the Bill that authorized the Canadian Northern arbitration? I had an allegation from the leader of the Opposition that it was abused. I challenged him then to make good his allegation; I challenged him to bring forward one single clause or sentence of that agreement which had been prepared on the authority and faith of the statute passed by this House and which was out of consonance with that statute, or which, in fact, did not safeguard the public rights or was a concession to the other parties to the bargain. Has he made good the allegation? He talked a lot along lines of what I must describe as demagogism, but he did not attempt to make good the specific allegations which he recklessly put forward on a subject which I venture to say he knew nothing at all about.
Now, the hon. member tells us that he is afraid we are going to get into great trouble with the United States. He read an article -no, he did not; he read part of an article -from a newspaper called The Journal of Commerce, published in New York. After reading such extracts, as suited him, he told the House that the suggestion of the article was that there would be objection to this agreement on the part of the United States Government, and that, as a consequence, he had a new reason for hesitation to advance. The article in question does comment upon the course that is being pursued. It contains, I think, exactly the extracts that he quoted; it gives one side and the other side. I do not wonder that there should be such an article, following the fears that hon. gentlemen expressed in the early part, of this debate almost a month ago now. I do not wonder that these fears would be carried by the winds and the telegraph wires down
to the United States, and that some newspaper would have an article upon them. But he took care not to read it all; he explained to the House that he would not read the rest of it and he simply let it go at that. I will read a little of the rest of it, and perhaps hon. members will then understand why he did not read the rest of it:
No similar issue has ever come before the State Department, it is understood. There is some disposition to believe that the ownership of the stock of the Panama railroad by the Government of the United States furnishes a parallel case. The statement has been made that the Panama railroad as a corporation is subject to the same control by the Pan-American Government as any other private enterprise, and it is probable that this will be the attitule of the United States as to the Grand Trunk system.
I am afraid the hon. member has sent out an invitation to a ghost that is not likely to be accepted. He has at least one bogey that he won't very often put up to knock down again.
The hon. member made some other references in the course o-f his address, many of theta nothing more or less than repeated misrepresentation of statements that had been made on the part of the Government and misrepresentations of figures that had been brought down. He went so far as to say that the House had not been advised of the obligations of the system, notwithstanding the fact that every obligation has not only been brought down, but its proper allocation made and its nature fully defined. The proper division and the various characteristics of the obligations have been amply explained.
All obligations to the last dollar are pretty well known to this House and to any hon. member who desires to peruse the papers that have been laid on the Table, and I do not know what more a Government can doi The hon. member asks then finally and as a last plea that we be good enough to bring down the agreement so that it may be seen by hon. members of this House. Most assuredly, it .will be brought down. I have never known, in all my knowledge of Parliament, of an agreement made on behalf of a Government that was not laid on the Table when it was made or just as *soon as possible afterwards. That undoubtedly will be done; but if we are not to do anything until the agreement brought down, what is the good of what we are doing now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
is changing his tune now. Do I understand him to promise that the agreement will be brought down?


Arthur Meighen: I will sit down so as
to let the bon. member tell me what tune I am on now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
declined to promise before that- the agreement would be brought before Parliament for ratification. If he will say now that he promises to give Parliament the right to ratify that agreement, I will withdraw my amendment.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
does not see any difference between bringing down the agreement and refusing to do anything until the agreement is signed and scaled and brought d-own.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Arthur Meighen: Did I never say that,
the agreement would be brought down? I told the hon. gentleman that the first time he mentioned the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us understand each other accurately.


Arthur Meighen: I do not misunderstand the hon. member in the slightest. He does not want to do anything until the agreement is Drought down. In that case, what is this debate for?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I assure the minister that I would like the Government to proceed at once with the agreement? The whole purpose is by all means to let the Government go ahead and complete the agreement, but let the minister give the House the assurance that when the agreement is completed, it will be brought down and submitted to Parliament fo-r ratification.


Arthur Meighen: Then what is the purpose of this debate?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The purpose
of this debate is to find out whether the Government is agreeable to that course. The minister says that he will bring down the agreement, but he is. careful not to say that he will submit the agreement to Parliament for ratification, and that is the whole point.


Arthur Meighen: If after this debate the agreement is to be submitted to Parliament for review again, what is the good of this debate or of this Bill? There is no sense in taking the two courses, as the hon. member must surely see. There is no common sense nor propriety; in fact, greater lunacy could not possibly be conceived of than to take the two courses. What is the object of the debate on this Bill? This de-

bate is the method by which Parliament is made aware of the principles, indeed, the specific clauses which, so far as Parliament desires, are to be embodied in the agreement. If the agreement is later to be brought down for review, what is the good of this debate? You have to take one course or the other.


Lucien Cannon: Suspend the discussion.


Arthur Meighen: One course or the other must be pursued. To take the two courses is simply to play with Parliament, and I cannot conceive of anything so wholly indefensible-I described it as lunacy. You could not possibly defend both courses. It is for Parliament to decide whether we are justified in taking this course or whether the other would be better. I put it to hon. gentlemen:	Do you prefer the course of
1903, or do you prefer this? Do you prefer to have something to say as to what is in the agreement, or do you prefer to have no opportunity at all except to say:	Yes or
no? That is what is before the House. Certainly the agreement will be brought down; but when a Government is authorized to make an agreement and when that Government is told the nature and the only nature which that agreement can have, then that is the authority of that Government; and that is the best method of procedure in the interest of Parliament and in deference to the just rights of Parliament and of the people whom Parliament represents. That is the best way and the democratic way to go before Parliament. It is not the 1903 method; I do not think the people of this country want the 1903 method any oftener than is unavoidable. I will tell the House a little more about that method. In 1903, the Government of the day made an agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company. They threw the agreement into the arena here, and do you know the way in which they did that? They did not even put a resolution on the Order Paper that hon. members in the Opposition or the hon. members behind the Government could see it and know what in the world it was before the debate came on. I said a moment ago that there was not a week's notice; I want now to tell this House that there, was not an hour's notice; that there was not a minute's notice. I will explain the procedure that was followed, a procedure, I think, unprecedented in the history of this or of any other Parliament. The leader of the Government of that day stood in his place and moved for leave to introduce a Bill. By the rules of the House there had to be a resolution before the Bill could

be committed; but he introduced the Bill before he introduced the resolution. Why: Because if he had introduced the resolution first, he would have had to put it on the Order Paper to introduce it, and then hon. members would have known what was contained in the resolution. He did not want that, so he preceded the resolution by the Bill. You do not' have to distribute the Bill. Pie got up and made a speech ol about two hours in length, and none of the members of the House had ever had the Bill before him, and when he got through with his speech, he sent across for the first time a copy of the Bill to the leader of the Opposition That is a course in the interest of democracy, il you please. That is the fidelity to democratic principles that is' solemnly advised on' the part of the leader of the Opposition to-day. We want no more of the manner or the form or the substance of the 1903 course again in this Parliament or in this country. Therefore, I say that of the two methods that were before us from which we might choose, we have chosen the one that shows the greatest consideration for members of Parliament, that gives the people of this country the best chance to be heard, that is in every way the most democratic and, indeed, the most prudent in the interest of the whole nation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, it would appear as if the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) and myself or somebody else on '"his side of the House could con" tinue making speeches -and replying back and forth for the balance of the winter. The other day the Minister of the Interior made exactly the same speech as he has made this evening. I replied to it and, as tonight, he has paid no attention to my reply, that makes it necessary for me, in the briefest possible way, to reply to his speech again, and I hope that will be the end of the matter. I have the gratification of knowing that in making my reply to-night to the Minister of the Interior, I have a bigger audience than I had the other night. Hon. members are gathered in the House, and I hope they will stay for a few moments. As a rule we have not the luxury of having hon. gentlemen opposite remain to hear us because evidently in the caucus they are told what is to be done.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They will not stay here because what is the good of their hearing anything about the matter; they are told
what they are to do, and that is the end of it. That seems to be the position of hon gentlemen opposite because if their information consisted in what they heard. in the House, it would be very meagre because they are here very seldom if at all. The Minister of the Interior, in his usual emphatic manner and knowing exactly the chords to touch in the hon. members behind him, asks them to decide which they would have, which they would prefer, the conduct of the Laurier Government in 1903 or his own conduct, that of this Government on this occasion. He knows in advance, what answer will be for he got into caucus before introducing this Bill.	He is,
therefore, taking	no	risk	at	all
in putting that question to his jury. He knows their verdict in advance. I have no hesitation whatever in telling the minister which course I, as an ordinary democratic citizen of this country, would choose. I would certainly take the course that was adopted by the Government in 1903, when both the Bill and the agreement were submitted to Parliament. When that agreement was made with the Grand Trunk people it contained all the terms, which was a notice to them that the agreement was not binding until it had received the approval of Parliament. That is the kind of agreement commercial men make who are sent out travelling. One comes, we will say, to my country by the sea, and takes an order for perhaps $10,000 of goods.


Charles Sheard: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If my hon. friend would go into the office of the Nova Scotia Steel or the Dominion Coal Company he would find that a $10,000 order is a very small affair. When the traveller sells that order he says to the purchaser: "This order is not binding until my principal at home approves it. That is the kind of bargain, I am making with you, and if you do not get the goods you have no cause for complaint because you understand from the beginning I am only making a tentative bargain, which, if my principal does not approve, is no bargain at all." That is the kind of agreement we made in 1903 with the Grand Trunk. We simply said to them: "We will make this tentative agreement with you, and if Parliament approves, it will become a bargain, but if Parliament rejects it there will be no bargain at all." That is the position we took, and it is a most extraordinary thing for hon. gentlemen opposite to allege-it is an accusation

against themselves-that Parliament has absolutely no independence, and that a Government or a section of a Government can make any kind of an agreement, and if they make it that is the end of it, it being a useless formality to submit it to Parliament, because Parliament must adopt it. I do not go that far, and I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will not go that far. Are they going to strip themselves entirely of their independence and of every particle of judgment and say that if the Government which they support brings in an agreement, that is the end of it, because they must vote for it? That would be stripping Parliament of all its power; the will of the people as represented by Parliament will be a thing of the past if that is what they are going to do. I hope that none of the Unionist party, which is only a little step from old hard-and-fast Toryism, will say that that is the doctrine they espouse, and that it is carrying out the will of the people. If so, they might as well stay at home and send a rubber stamp here instead of themselves. The Minister of the Interior could then put the rubber stamp on the agreement and save them the trouble of coming here at all. But that was the doctrine put forward to-night by hon. gentlemen on the other side.
What was the practice followed in 1903? I am not going into all the details of the agreement, and I am speaking from memory, but the agreement was submitted to Parliament and approved after a very lengthy discussion; I forget how long, but it was months before Parliament had fully discussed and thrashed out the matter. Furthermore, not a dollar o"r a cent was expended under that agreement until Parliament was dissolved and the Government of the day had appealed to the country on that question. If hon. gentlemen opposite will follow that same course there will not be five minutes further discussion on this side of the House.
Mr. MEIGHE.N: Was not the Bill passed in 1903 before there was any appeal to the country, and was there not even a new contract made with the Grand Trunk which passed the House before there was an appeal to the country?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes, I have the; statutes here.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I say there was no
money expended, nor a sod turned on the road until after the election. I did not

come to this Parliament for the first time in my life until after the election of 1904, when I met in Ottawa for the first time one of the Commissioners who was then organizing his staff and getting ready to begin work. Not a dollar was spent on the work before the election. While it is true that the Government could possibly bind the hands of representatives of the people sitting behind them in Parliament, no Government except this Government would make any attempt to bind the hands and feet of the electorate of this country. In 1903, as the Government was entering into a great undertaking, they submitted the agreement to the people of the country and the people of the country approved it. We * cannot hope to be wiser than the great masses of the people of this country. The masses of the people, the people of the country generally, are not all wise, . but they are the best we have, and when we submit a question to their cool deliberation and judgment and they reach a verdict, we have to stand by it, and there is no use crjdng over spilt milk if we find the verdict was not exactly what we thought it might be. The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) speaking in this House a few evenings ago said it was a waste of time to indulge in recriminations as to who was to blame for the railway situation. If there was any blame, we must share it equally, he said, and do the best we can.	*
Without taking up much time, let me say that I prefer the course that was adopted in 1903. I say to the Government, bring the Bill and the agreement before Parliament and get the approval of Parliament. But do not be satisfied with that. Submit not only the Bill and the agreement to the people of this country, but submit the Government itself to the people. If hon. gentlemen opposite are so courageous and believe they represent the will of the people in going on with this transaction, let them say to the Grand Trunk people: We are a government which was elected on a specific cry and for a specific purpose. We have never discussed this question with the country and the Canadian people have not had an opportunity of passing judgment upon it. Wait until the proper times comes, or until we make a proper time for appeal to the country. We will then make this an issue, and if the Canadian people approve of the agreement and give us a mandate to go on with the transaction, and -add this further weight of public ownership to the present burdens of the country, we shall be prepared to give

the matter serious -consideration, but until that time comes it is better to leave such an im-porant question in abeyance. I submit that that would be a business proposition and the proper way of dealing with a matter of this kind. We are not following the course that was adopted in 1903. Instead of that, a Bill is introduced in Parliament which does not profess to go into details of the various things that are to be done undeT the agreement, but simply gives a general power to the Government to do certain things. We say that that is not sufficiently specific. We say that the agreement itself, which will practically be an Act of Parliament. or a supplement to this Act, should be brought before Parliament. And when we do see it we shall possibly be ready to submit it to the proper authorities for the further carrying out of it.
Now, as to what the practice is, let hon. gentlemen look 'at Chapter 20 of the Acts of 1914 respecting the Canadian Northern railway. That Bill was drafted by my hon. friend, the Minister of the Interior, (Mr. Meighen) with some assistance no doubt; and he will admit, I think, that he had something to do also with the drafting of the present Bill before the House. In 1914 there was an agreement as well as a Bill. The agreement is part of Chapter 20 of the Acts of 1914, and every particle of it, every term and provision of the agreement, is set forth in the Bill itself. Now, if that represented good practice on that occasion by the same Government carrying into effect what they termed the government ownership of railways, what is the matter with it to-day? We are simply asking the Government to be uniform in their procedure. If I were informed by my good friend, the distinguished surgeon from Toronto, (Mr. Sheard) that he performed a certain major operation some two or three years ago in a particular way that proved highly successful, and that he intended performing the same operation again, would he for one moment, merely for the sake of experiment, adopt any practice other than that which he had already tried and found eminently satisfactory? _ Not by any means; he would do precisely as he had done before. In this matter, we are asking parliamentary practitioners, who are now practising upon the carcass of the country, to follow the practice which they themselves have already laid down. For about the hundredth time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Interior tells us that this bargain was submitted to us on May 5, 1918, by the Prime Minister, and he asserts that we should have stood up in our places on that occasion and protested even against the Prime Minister's talking about the matter. But, Sir, it was nothing more nor less than general talk in regard to the railway situation. No Bill was submitted. I want hon. gentlemen opposite to be fair to this side of the House and to themselves. Why should we begin
to	criticise a Bill	that	was	notintroduced, and an	agreement '	thatwas	not . formulated	in	any	way?The	Prime -Minister at	that	time	was
dealing largely, as I venture to say, with the question of general policy in regard to the unification of railways in this country, blotting out here and there useless pieces of railroads, and devising some working arrangement to secure a co-operative basis of railway operation in Canada with a view to saving overhead expenses and carrying on the systems as satisfactorily as possible. I forget what the Prime Minister said in relation to the Grand Trunk, but, whatever it was, it was all in connection with the general discussion. The leader of the Opposition at that time, Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier, took part in the discussion and made statements in the -same general way. But, I repeat, there was nothing definite before the Government; there was nothing definite before the House. Yet we are told to-day that- we must say nothing , about this Bill because, forsooth, we -raised no objection when the mere mention of the matter was made in this House in 1918. In answer to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, the other evening, I drew his attention to a cablegram appearing in this blue-book, sent by the Prime Minister of Csftiada on the 10th day of September, 1918, to the Canadian High Commissioner in London, asking him to convey to Sir Alfred Smith-ers a message that unless a better proposition was submitted before the end of September, 1918, than had hitherto been made, all negotiations would have to be regarded as closed. When the Minister of the Interior says that we knew that some negotiations were in progress on the 15t-h of May, 1918, I think that the telegram of the Prime Minister on the 10th day of September should be accepted as a fair answer to the statement that we should have criticised this transaction all along. There was no offer subsequently to the 1 Oth of September, and, so far as we are concerned, that was the end of the negotiations until the 9th day of last month when the Minister of the Interior introduced this legislation. We are now told that, in the language of the law, we are

estopped from criticising the bargain because we were not barking at the heels of the Government all the time. That is not a fair or reasonable position for hon. members opposite to take, and we have a right to ask that we shall be put on the same basis exactly as those who are selling the road. The vendors are told in this Bill that they shall have the right to look at the agreement and pass judgment upon it before signing it, and we who are buying the road should also have the opportunity of seeing the agreement and assuring ourselves before signing it that it embodies every provision necessary to safeguard the interests of the people. The Minister of the Interior, although he did not make the statement to-night, has said that this attitude of inquiry on the part of the Opposition is Bolshevism. Bolshevism! For us to suggest that the people of the country, through their representatives in Parliament, should see the agreement before committing themselves to it. That point has already been adequately .dealt with, and I shall say nothing concerning it, except to remark that if , our anxiety in this House in the interests of the people, and our desire to know just how public money shall be expended;-if this, and our request for ample opportunity to ascertain what we are undertaking in the way of financial obligations, constitute Bolshevism, then all I have to say is that there are a great many Bolshevists in this country; because we do not want


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker,


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: to have things
pushed down our throats in this manner. We want to have a say in the expenditure of public moneys.


Arthur Meighen: I do not propose to sit quietly through a series of misrepresentations, and I rise to a point of order. The expressions that have been attributed to me by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) are wholly untrue. I gave utterance to no such statements nor anything that could fairly or honourably he so construed, and the hon. gentleman, if he does not know it, should know it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I heard the hon. gentleman's speech and have given my recollection of it.


Arthur Meighen: Just quote it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I cannot be bothered looking it up now; I do not know what

it is. But if I have said anything that is not consistent with the Hansard report of my hon. friend's speech, I am ready to withdraw it. The same statement, however, was made by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. King) half an hour ago, and my hon. friend accepted it.


Arthur Meighen: It is no use checking him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend is
a lawyer, and he knows the principles that govern evidence in courts of law. If the statement is made in the presence of a witness in court that he said certain things and he stands mute and does not deny it, the court takes for granted that the statement is true, and I can go to the jury and tell them that that is the evidence. The statement was made By the hon. member for Prince exactly as. I make it, the minister stood by and did not protest; therefore, it is binding upon him, and I have a .perfect right to take it for granted that it is true.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) to withdraw the statement that he has a right to repeat words which have been denied as having been uttered by the Minister of the Interior.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Arthur Meighen: That could not have been done if we had got the agreement signed first.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Now we have also an improvement in section 5 which was going to saddle this country for thirty years with these old bonds and compel us to pay four per cent interest whether we could get money cheaper or not or whether the people wanted to get clear of that burden sooner. We have succeeded in a constitutional and proper way in inducing Parliament to cut that down to five years so as to give the people an opportunity in five years from now of getting clear of paying taxes under this Bill if they^choose to do so.
With regard to section 6, we have by discussion' and so forth induced the Government to make a change which gives us the benefit of the judge of the Exchequer Court as the third man to be appointed, I presume, by the Government without any pledge to get the consent of any of the parties to the agreement or arbitration. We wanted to secure the further advantage, as long as the judge was to be called in at all, of having the whole business left to him and securing the provision that he should act as a court and not as a third man.
We were suggesting the other night that there should be a review in this House of the decision of the board of arbitrators. That is of course along the same line as asking for a review of this agreement, only perhap's this is going farther. In the discussion, to be found at page 1583 of unrevised Hansard, the Minister of the Interior says:
The hon. gentleman says, let a judicial tribunal, after hearing sworn witnesses, decide what a certain property of a very complicated nature is worth, then let public opinion do lta work throughout the country and be reflected in this House, and then we will see whether the judicial tribunal was right or wrong. Could a more definite and concrete example of what we might call parlour Bolshevism oe given? Is not that Bolshevism itself?
That is exactly what the minister says. If the award of the arbitration is to be submitted to this House the minister says that it will be Bolshevism. We say that it is not Bolshevism but that it is the exercise of the power of democracy by the people and in Parliament through their representatives. I do not think it was worth while for the minister to try and make out that I was misquoting him, or that my leader was misquoting him, when he just gave the substance of his words to be found on page 1583 of Hansard and contained in the statement made by the minister on the 29th October last. We were saying that no matter what the tribunal was or what might be the decision of a properly constituted court, before it receives final assent and becomes binding we should be able to have a look at it and say whether or not it is a proper decision. That is all we said and the minister says that it is highly improper and that it is* Bolshevism itself.
We say, go hack to the practice of 1903 and to that which was followed by hon. gentlemen themselves in 1914 when they passed chapter 20 of the Acts of that year dealing with the Canadian Northern and the agreement as set forth in the schedule to that Act. That is all we are asking to have done, and I submit that it is impossible to give this House or the country a proper conception of what the agreement is going to be unless we see the agreement itself.
My hon. friend in his usual methods of trying to satisfy his friends made a very strong effort to get out of this position by saying:	Why certainly we are going to
bring the agreement down; when did the hon. gentleman ever see a bargain or agreement made by this Government or any

Government that was not brought down and laid upon the Table? I presume he wanted his followers to believe that that is exactly the thing desired. But what the hon gentleman means is that the agreement will be brought down after it is fully drafted and signed, and we will have nothing to do but look at it and can do nothing at all with it. That is not what we want: We want the agreement brought down when it is drafted, when both sides have agreed to the draft, then let us look at it and see if it is all right and if there is anything that' we could suggest that should be in it. Let us have the agreement in the present case submitted here for ratification as the agreement of 190o was. I am not asking the hon. gentleman to go so far as to submit the question to the people and have a general election upon it before the agreement goes into force. If he wants to follow the conditions that existed in 1903 that is what took place, but perhaps that is asking too much. Very well, when we are foregoing these things we are not asking too much or going too far when we ask the. hon. gentlemen who have charge of this agreement to bring it down. We are asking the right hon. gentleman who is more responsible' for the actions of the Government of which he is, for the present, the head to take into consideration whether or not he is properly representing the views of the people of this country when he is going to make a bargain involving five or six or seven hundred millions of the peoples' money and refusing the representatives of the people the right to look at this agreement. I submit that the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government is not doing justice to himself nor justice to the principles of democracy in this country if he shoves this agreement and this legislation through in that manner and refuses us the simple right of looking at the document which is going to bind us to a liability of such a character before we put our signatures to it. I have much pleasure, Sir, in supporting the motion which is now in your hands.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall detain the House but a very few minutes and shall endeavour almost exclusively to confine myself to the amendment, Sir, which is in your hands.
I say almost but not exclusively, because I am afraid I shall have to make a very brief reference to the legislation of 1903. Again and again the Minister of Railways and the Minister of the Interior have denounced the railway legislation of that year,

and they have not always confined themselves to facts. Again and again from that side of the House have come statements which were monstrously unfounded. I have thought it wise not to burden this debate by going into that question generally, but may I be permitted to give the House and the country one or two striking, salient facts in connection with that legislation which are worth remembering? The legislation of 1903 was designed to provide for the construction of a second transcontinental railway in Canada. One would judge from the way hon. gentlemen opposite have denounced it, that that proposition was a matter of public division, a monstrous thing undertaken by the Laurier Government. Now, as a matter of fact, there was practically no difference of opinion at that time as respects the desirability of a second transcontinental railway; it was only when the question of the details came to be considered that the Opposition were willing to take strong ground against it. I remember that on more than one occasion when the Opposition were charged from our side of the House with opposing the idea of a second transcontinental railway they denied it indignantly; they said they were not opposing the construction of the railway but this particular transaction-it was the bargain that they were opposing. And what, Sir, was their claim about the bargain? What was the great crime the Laurier Government were accused of committing then? It was that they were giving away great resources and a great prize to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. It was that they were giving the Grand Trank Railway Company such a bargain that it was going to make them rich, and the country was asked to rise and condemn the Government because they were giving the Grand Trunk Railway Company such a valuable contract and such a rich prize. That was the ground taken by the Conservative party at that time. What is their attitude to-day in regard to the very same transaction? The Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Railways come before this House and they say that we ruined the Grand Trank railway by giving them that contract. Every ground taken with respect to the actions of the Government in 1903 is abandoned, and to-day the Conservative party-so far as the Minister of Railways and the Minister of the Interior-can be taken as exponents of that party- are simply reversing their action. Now they are saying we destroyed the Grand Trunk company by making this contract

with them. I have said before in this House that the contract in question was a hard one. Never was a contract made in which the public interest was so well protected; never was'a contract made in which the company concerned were held to the mark so severely and so strongly as in that contract. I do not want to enlarge upon the contract now, I merely ask the House and the country to bear in mind these two important facts: First that the attitude with respect to the legislation of 1903 of the Conservative party, if we may take their subsequent declaration, was not in opposition to the construction of the road but in opposition to the terms of the bargain, and second that the ground of opposition was that we were giving a great prize and great privileges to the Grand Trunk Company.
Now then let me come to the more immediate purpose of the amendment. The Minister of the Interior says- that there are two ways of making a bargain. I admit that at once. I admit that you can come forward and pass a general Act embodying the principles of the Government's policy, and you can provide that regulations or that an agreement may be made with respect to it. That is a very common practice, and when the hon. gentleman says that is one way of doing business I admit it at once. But it is a question of degree: When you come to the larger and greater transactions the details are everything. The details of this particular agreement are everything; and I call to witness my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) who said here the other day that he was much disturbed over ..this matter and he was only going to be satisfied after he had an opportunity of scanning the details. He is not going to have those details at all. There is all the difference between a big transaction and a little one. You can pass an Act of minor importance and you can provide thatthe Governorin Council may, by regulations, carry it out. You may even provide that the Government may make some agreement later on with respect to it, and if the thing be not a matter of transcendent importance you may justify that proceeding. But when you take a transaction of this kind the details are everything and we should have the agreement before us, and that is where the Act of 1903 justified itself. But my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) says: " Oh, think of what they did in the Act ol 1903. They brought the agreement down and you had to take it or leave it/there
was no choice offered. The agreement, signed, sealed and delivered, was flung on the table of the House and you had to take it or reject it. What an awful thing, a shocking thing, the Laurier Government has done." Well, I hold in my hand the. Canadian Pacific Railway Act of 1881, and the Government of that day pursued exactly the same policy when they made a contract. They brought down every detail of that contract and they brought in a Bill to ratify the contract exactly as we did in 1903. The Act in question, chapter 1 of the statutes of 1881, recites various things and then section 1 declares:
The said contract, a copy of which with schedule annexed, is appended hereto, is hereby approved and ratified, and the Government is hereby authorized to perform and carry out the conditions thereof, according to their purport.
That contract was what? It, was a vast transaction. It was not one of the ordinary small matters such as my hon. friend has cited, it was one of the biggest transactions in the history of the country. It was thought proper, before the House was called upon to -pass'upon it, that hon. members should be made familiar with every detail, and to the honour of the Conservative Government of that day, be it said, they never thought of any other policy. They brought down every line of the agreement and they gave it to the House to approve of. We followed that example in 1903.' And now it is because thi's is a big transaction and not an ordinary one, it is because it is one of the greatest transactions in the history of the country, that we say the details should be forthcoming and we ought to have these details before this House commits itself.


Mr. J. A. CAMPBELL (Nelson):: Mr. [DOT]
Speaker, as the hour is getting late and I have an amendment to submit, 1 move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Archibald Campbell: we are satisfied that the Canadian people are getting, value for their investment. I have examined this proposition as carefully as I can, and I have come to the conclusion, although I have no wish to differ from the Government in this respect, that the proposition as it stands is not a safe one for the Canadian people. A few days ago the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), in an excellent and businesslike speech, which he delivered in this House, said:
What we have to decide is whether the assets of the company are greater than the liabilities which we agree to assume, and then leave the rest to arbitration.
I am thoroughly in accord with that statement. What we have to decide is whether the assets of the company are greater than the liabilities which we agree to assume, and then we must leave the rest to arbitration. My conclusion is that the liabilities of the company which we agree to assume in accordance with this Bill are likely to he much greater than the assets', and, therefore, not only will there be nothing left to arbitrate, but we have already agreed to pay too much. Why not arbitrate all the stocks, and not only the three preference and the common stocks? That would make for uniformity; and in any event if we read the Drayton-Acworth report and other reports, and if we take the information that has been given by the Government to the House, it will be found, I think, that these guaranteed . stocks are really of questionable value. The point is to examine the assets of the road in property and equipment and to see whether those assets are to be much more than the liabilities which we agree to assume, so that there will really be something left to arbitrate. I do not purpose going into the details in this matter as the figures have been given by various members of the House from time to time. , I could take up half an hour or three-quarters of an hour of the time of the House in giving strings of figures to prove my conclusion, but I do not think such a course would be justifiable at this stage of the night, and I will, therefore, content myself with outlining the situation as I have it in mind. A reference in this connection is necessary to the statement of assets and liabilities appearing on page 39 of the blue-book. You will note, Sir, that the property investment in road and equipment is given at approximately $435,000,000. That is on one side, and on the other side we have the liabilities which are of various classes. The first are bonds and guaranteed stocks. The Minister 
of Railways has told us that these amount to approximately $226,000,000. In addition to this, the Grand Trunk have guaranteed bonds of subsidiary companies to the extent of approximately $19,000,000 giving, roughly speaking, a guarantee liability of $285,000,000, if this proposition is put through. There are not included in this bonded indebtedness certain liabilities which the Government must assume if they take over the stock of the Grand Trunk system. These items consist of the following:
Government loan	? 15 ,;9 OOvO'O 0
Equipment loans, over	 5,00'0,000
Unsecured, notes, approximately. 4,000v000
These make, roughly speaking, a little over $24,000,000, or let us say in round figures, $25,000,000, thus making the liabilities which we have to assume if we take over the road, about $310,000,000. Looking over the statement we find that Here are some items under reserves and advances to controlled companies which are really cross items and which appear- on the opposite side as assets, so that we need not bother with them. But there is an item headed " current liabilities " amounting to $22,000,000 odd. Presumably, to offset that, there is an item on the other side of " current assets " amounting to $51,000.000 odd. There are olher items in connection with the assets, such as calls in arrears on capital stock, $7,000,000, traders' sidings over $1,000,000, and some others. I have examined these very carefully, and after asking the minister some questions the other day, I think I can say from the answers that the minister gave -me that it will be a fair assumption that if all these realisable assets were taken together, they would not more than offset the current liabilities, if they would do that much, for among those current assets are included such items as advances to subsidiary companies which should not be included in this statement. Therefore, we will, in a general way offset the one against the other, and in this .case we are not doing the Grand Trunk Railway system an injustice. Thus, we are left with an obligation which we are assuming in connection with this system of $310,090,000 or thereabouts. That, you will notice, leaves a considerable margin to work on if the value of the Grand Trunk system is as stated, $435,000,000. The Minister of Railways intimated the other day that he 11 p.m. was satisfied that the real value of the road was fully this much, if not more. I have not been able to bring myself to believe that that is the situation,

not only from an examination of the data which have been given by the Government but from interviews with engineers, railway and otherwise, who know something about the Grand Trunk Railway system. From what I am able to figure out, I am satisfied that that amount should be materially reduced in order to shew what the actual value of the system is at the present time. I would not like to say just how much should be taken off, but probably 20 percent would be the minimum. The Grand Trunk system is not a first class system, and the Grand Trunk management, as every one knows, has not been such as to make the best out of the property from the time the road was started. The cost of construction was a great deal more than it should have been, and branch lines or small railways were taken over at prices far in excess of what should have been paid. That, I think, is a matter of common information and the system at the present time is not in such shape that it would sell for anything like what is stated to be the paper 'valuation thereof. We know that some of the rolling stock of the Grand Trunk is very old and as a matter of fact should have been scrapped. The Drayton-Acworth report on which hon. members seem to rely a great deal states on page 84:
In the Bast the position of the Grand Trunk is most unsatisfactory. Beyond question the system immediately requires at least 200 more locomotives and at least 10,000 freight cars. If coal famines are to be avoided, and the proper winter movement kept up, the line from Burlington Junction to Fort Erie urgently requires double tracking. Other improvements are imperative.
And so on, and so on. That indicates what rolling stock is necessary over and above what they already have, and I am creditably informed that if that rolling stock were obtained, a great deal of the rolling stock which they at present have would have to be scrapped.
Another question in connection with the Grand Trunk system is the matter of grades. Even as to the Grand Trunk system in Ontario, with regard to which portion I am personally not very familiar, I am told by an authority which I think is -reliable that the grades on some of the main lines of the Grand Trunk in Ontario are greater than they are on competing roads doing the same dlass of work. Far instance, the grades on the line running from Midland to, I think, Belleville and on the Canada Atlantic from Depot Harbour to Montreal.
The grades are heavier than on other lines that are carrying similar traffic, and
whether this road is taken over-or not expensive improvements will have to be made in order that it may compete satisfactorily with other roads. The grades will have to be lowered, and in some cases new routes taken altogether. Not only in the matters I have mentioned but for terminals and other items which I shall not enumerate at this late hour, vast sums of money will have to be spent on'the Grand Trunk system in^ order to put it on- a proper com- -peting basis with the other roads, and in order that as part of the National system it shall be of such a character as the people desire for their government-owned railways. Taking all these things into consideration. I think that 'a large portion of this apparent margin will have disappeared if we figure in our estimate this reduced valuation of the system. The balance of that margin will be more than eaten up by the fact that the Government in taking over the Grand Trunk Pacific will assume far greater liabilities than the value of the road. The Minister of the Interior stated emphatically the other day that the liabilities are vastly in excess of the value of the road. I have not seen any official statement of the estimated value of the Grand Trunk Pacific at the present time, but from statements that have been made I would say that anything from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 would be the excess of liabilities over assets, which amount the Gov-[DOT] eminent will have to assume in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and which, as the minister very properly said, should be charged against the Grand Trunk Company by the board of arbitrators. From the summary I have given it would appear that there is not enough value, not by quite a few millions, in the property we are taking over to cover the liabilities which we agree to assume under this agreement. Therefore, not only will there be no value whatever in the three preference and_ the common stocks but we shall have to pay par for guaranteed stocks which are not worth anything like that amount.
I was going to refer to a statement which appears in an article by Mr. John S. Ewart in the Canadian Nation, copies of which were put in our boxes at the post office yesterday. I shall not read the extracts, however, at this late hour. The author would go even further than I propose and his argument demands careful consideration.
The question then is, why should we not submit to arbitration all doubtful matters in connection with


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE (St. James):: 
John Dowsley Reid: He will be a small
value man.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Oh, no. Listen to what the article says:
The Government will appoint an arbitrator who will be told to try and meet the other man's views, and when the two agree the value of the third man's views will be nil.
And that is always the case, Mr. Speaker. Further, the article says:
Isn't this a nice way to camouflage Ibe public with the so-called arbitration? Judge Cassels might just as well stay at home. He can't stop the farce.
I have had considerable experience in matters of expropriation in the City of Montreal. When land or anything else is expropriated and a board is appointed, one commissioner is named by the city, a second by the interested parties, and when these two cannot agree on the choice of a third, the Judge of the Superior Court names the third commissioner. Past experience tells us, Mr. Speaker, that the view expressed in the Star as I have just Tead it to the House is absolutely correct. Now, if I were one of the three ministers referred to in the article from which I have quoted I would not rest passively under the imputation therein contained. The Minister of the Interior, unconscious of any suspicion in regard to himself, generally accuses us on this side of the House of being influenced by the interests of the Canadian Pacific railway. But the three ministers who are mentioned in this article have never given the House any absolute and clearly defined statement of their position on this question. All they have done has been to present us with a maze of figures and make lengthy speeches.. The President of the Canadian 109
Pacific railway has made it clear that that corporation has no interest in trying to influence the Opposition in this House in connection with this measure, and hon. members have no foundation whatever for any charge that we on this side are so influenced. Some ministers have held up the possibility of control of the Grand Trunk by the Canadian Pacific railway as a bugbear to scare members into supporting this measure. The Minister of the Interior not long ago said, as appears on page 1659 of unrevised Hansard:
But I wonder how comfortable the hen. member for Shelburne and Queen's feels to-day associated with and founding his doubts and his drifting shadow of a policy upon the resolutions of the Montreal Board of Trade and the manifest and only too evident hostility of the Canadian Pacific railway; very strange that in the city of Montreal, the home of the Canadian Pacific, a city that no doubt has benefited largely as a result of being the chief centre and fortress of that railway-very strange I say it is, that there should be found the whole head and front of the offending to the Government policy on this matter. The hon. gentlemen, it is true, tracked over the whole of this Dominion in search of encouragement and landed at Bogina.
I already have challenged the Government and the Minister of the Interior to put before this House any resolution of any body approving of the action of the Government or showing that they represent public opinion on this question. No answer has been given to that challenge. We have seen a great many resolutions in opposition to the policy of the Government, and even if it were true to say that they only came from Montreal they would deserve attention.
Coming back to the position taken by the Minister of the Interior, I wish to direct the attention of the House to the position of the head of the Canadian Pacific on this question, as expressed on a very solemn occasion in the city of Montreal. It was at the opening meeting of the Victory Loan campaign in that city. That meeting was at tended by the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) who spoke of the Grand project, in the following terms:
The Grand Trunk Project.
As to the project itself he admitted that there was tremendous room for argument. Some considered that the Grand Trunk, the G.T.P. and the Trancontinental were all .part of the same scheme of transcontinental traffic, and that the Grand Trunk should he taken over to round it out. Others, equally patriotic, said that with these railways, and the Canadian Northern, too,
" for heaven's sake do not add the Grand Trunk to the general mess."
These were the diametrically opposite views. ''I will not deal with the merits of the ac-



REV1SED EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
quisition of the Grand Trunk," said Sir Henry.
" It is a nasty thing to have to do at the present Juncture, but sometimes nasty things have to be done, but I am not so anxious for trouble that I wanted this thing brought on during the Victory Loan." (Laughter and applause.)
But Sir Henry argued that railway matters, Grand Trunk or otherwise, had not the slightest thing to do with meeting Canada's obligations and keeping up Canada's credit, which was the aim of the Victory Loan.
He said positively there that he would rather not have the Grand Trunk affair on his shoulders for the moment. I suppose that he was afraid of the consequences to the Victory Loan. Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific was also present, he took up the question and I want to put before the House exactly where the Canadian Pacific stands on this question. I believe the Canadian Pacific president as fully as I believe lion, members on the other side. I quote the following:
The chairman then introduced Mr. E. W. Beatty, president of the C.P.R., who was received with cheers, and gave a vigorous expression of views regarding nationalization of railways.
" I have embraced, with a great deal of pleasure," said Mr. Beatty, " the opportunity of speaking on this loan, especially in view of the fact that elements have entered into it which render a frank discussion advisable, even though my own position in it may be regarded as -somewhat delicate and even invidious.
" I have listened to the comprehensive statement made by the Minister of Finance as to the objects of the loan, and the reasons why it should receive the support of all Canadians who have the welfare of the country at heart, and regard the sustaining of its credit as of vital consequence.
" The Minister of Finance and myself are not entire strangers. I knew him first as corporation counsel for the city of Toronto, and I admired him as an adroit counsel, and a sound lawyer. I knew him again as Chairman of the Railway Board, and I marvelled at times at his utter disregard of legal principles, (laughter.) I know him now as Minister of Finance, whose first work is the successful prosecution of this loan, but who has, I think, a very sincere appreciation of the necessity for national economy and prudence in official expenditure for the ifext few years if Canada is to reach the high place of prosperity to which it is entitled.
" I have also known the minister in roles which did not secure my unqualified commendation-he was a fine lawyer, an able judge, and will he, I feel sure, a national asset as Finance Minister, but his literary efforts are not all that I could wish. Some time ago, when he was a little younger, and, therefore, more prone to make mistakes,-he wrote a book,' (laughter). He wrote the book as Chairman of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the railway situation in Canada, and the book was called, and will go down into histqry as " The Drayton-Acworth Report." I read all of it with a great deal of interest, and some of it with a great deal of appreciation. In it he said some very nice things about the C.P.R., and then he suggested that the Government of Canada fMr. Lapointe.]
might own all the other railways and operate them under a system which he outlined. I have always wondered how a man could be so right and so wrong in the same hook."
I want to come down to the presentation of the president's view on this question:
" In this connection, and as one of the grounds on which Parliament is urged to support the proposals, it is said that if they are not confirmed and the roads are not acquired by the Government they will-to use the expressive phraseology of the Minister of Railways-be ' gobbled up by the C.P.R.' "
I can imaginesay's Mr. Beatty-
-several things worse than that (laughter and applause). It is only right that I should point out to you that there exist certain objections to this course which render the possibility of it ever taking place almost ridiculously remote. In the first pl%ce, I may be pardoned for calling your attention to the fact that there exists by statutg an absolute prohibition against any arrangement by way of amalgamation or joining of earnings between the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk or any branch lines of the Grand Trunk or leased by it, or under its control.	,
In the second place the Grand Trunk duplicates in many respects, the existing facilities of the Canadian Pacific in eastern Canada which would render its acquisition by the Canadian Pacific railway both unnecessary and
unwise.	,
In the third place, the Grand Trunk cannot be divorced from the Grand Trunk Pacific with its enormous liabilities-liabilities	*
imagine no corporation in Canada would think of assuming, even though they were able to do so.
Lastly-
And here comes .the denial.
-the acquisition of the Grand Trunk, or any portion of it, has never been suggested to the Canadian Pacific or by the Canadian Pacific, and has never been considered or contemplated in any way or by any means direct or indirect.
Those words were exactly to the point, and in view of this emphatic denial what evidence is there to sustain the allegations made by hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company? Does the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Railways know that the Canadian Pacific Company ever approached the Government or that they have ever indulged in any canvassing or lobbying with respect to the Grand Trunk? Do you not imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of the Interior would not have told us if such had been the case? I think he -would. The representative bodies of business men of the city of Montreal are against this project just as strongly as Mr. Beatty of the Canadian Pacific is opposed to it. The latter gentleman says his opposition is based on the fear

that the great interest of the Canadian Pacific in the city of Montreal and in the whole Dominion would be endangered by the disastrous deal which the Government is seeking to carry out. Mr. Zepherin Hebert, an important French Canadian represents* tive of the commercial interests in the city of Montreal, has also gone on record in opposition to the Government's policy. I am going to leave to the Government the responsibility for their own deeds.
Coming to the amendment of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell), it is possible to suspect that he is the representative of some of these shareholders. In view of the sus^ picions of 'graft in connection with this transaction which have been expressed by many of our newspapers, let me say that I will not vote for anything that savours in the least of acceptance of the Bill which is before the House. In the Montreal Star of to-day there is a despatch from Ottawa which contains a very curious statement as to rumours current in the corridors of Parliament, and I shall take a few minutes to read it to the House:
Nor is the suggestion lightly treated that, from all this financial debacle, annexation'may be the possible result. The view has long been expressed here privately-that with the enormous aggregate of war obligations and the staggering load now sought to he imposed, the burden will be too heavy for Canada's people to shoulder and that the not illogical even if regrettable expedient will be absorption by a larger country, financially able to bear the overpowering strain. „
The proposition of the Government has given rise to all these queer aspects of the situation. The whole community are asking themselves: Whither are we drifting? There is no question but that financially and industrially the United States is conquering this country, and it will carry out that conquest more quickly than-hon. gentlemen opposite believe. I know the Government are not frightened at the prospect. They will placidly pursue their way administering the affairs of this country in the way that pleases them, but there will have to be an accounting some day and it will not long be deferred. If the Government only dared to put the question to the issue at the present time there is not the least doubt but that they would meet with overwhelming defeat at the hands of the people.
Hon. Mr. ME1GHEN (Minister of the Interior) : I deem it my duty, although with very great reluctance, to say a few words on this amendment. I think the House would be well advised in voting down the amendment for reasons that I have alluded
109J
to, more or less, briefly, on other occasions, and which I will ask the privilege of recapitulating now and perhaps amplifying to some, degree. As hon. members will see from the cablegram of the 5th March, 1918, addressed by the Prime Minister to Sir George Perley for transmission to Mr. Smithers, the Prime Minister then offered a certain fixed amount in cash as rental for the system, to be assumed subject to the debenture debt. That fixed amount, as has often been repeated, was $2,500,000 for three years, $3,000,000 for five years, and $3,600,000 thereafter by way of rental. That money was to be distributed, according to the cable, among the guaranteed shareholders, the three preference shareholders, and the common stock shareholders-that is to say, the whole five classes. That was in effect an offer to the company of a certain definite sum by way of dividend per year-as rental if you call it such-or if that were not satisfactory, of arbitration of the value of those * five stocks-the guaranteed, the three preference, and the common. Consequently it is clear that it was, first of all, the desire of the Government that all these stocks should be submitted to arbitration if arbitration were the method of solving the difficulty which would be acceptable to the company. No progress was made with that proposal. It was rejected most peremptorily-as we thought most unreasonably-and the matter was pursued by negotiations overseas. It was most earnestly hoped at the time of these overseas negotiations that we could make some real progress and get to an end of them, because the end of the negotiations and the acquirement of the system was-as we viewed it and view it to-day, and as I believe every man who understands the railway situation and wished to give a judgment on the standpoint of the Canadian people views it-of the greatest possible concern to us.
The history of the operation of the Grand Trunk and the Transcontinental since, without the Grand Trunk as an adjunct to it, stretching out, as I have previously expressed it, into nothing-the history of the operation of these two roads .since shows how well advised we were in endeavouring to end all the negotiations if we possibly could. Because we did not get to the end we have lost in trying to operate these two long streaks, ending in rio traffic, $10,300,000 on one, $6,000,000 on the other, to say nothing of interest on capital in the Transcontinental. Now, we made no progress. In our endeavour to make some progress, believing that we
[Stage Direction]
would succeed,'and knowing as well that we had over $2,500,000 as a minimum to start with, to be increased to $3,000,000 in three years and $3,600,000 in eight, and knowing that that $2,500,000 would itself take care of the interest on the guaranteed Mock-because it had to be there applied until that interest was fully paid, the guaranteed stock being a second charge-wo felt we might succeed by saying: We will pay interest on the guaranteed stock in any event; that is to say, in effect we will make that two and a half millions a minimum and we will repay you for the balance. We were confident that we would arrive at a bargain on that basis-but to no purpose. Our offer then also was met with a peremptory refusal, and from that day the Government felt that they would not be justified in moving in any degree. Notwithstanding apprehensions on more than one occasion-apprehensions that I do not think were! lurufounded*-that if not the whole system, some essential vital part of the system might fall into hands from which we could not take it, we adhered definitely to the proposal we made embodying the minimum of $2,500,000 as stated in the letter of 11th July, 1918. We refused to move in any degree whatever from the substance of that offer; from it we have never moved and are not moving to-day. Well then, it was not considered attractive even in that form; the Grand Trunk did not show any inclination to come to those terms until about the first of September of this year, when they recommenced the negotiations in what might be termed a hopeful form.
Some hon. gentlemen persist in arguing this whole question as if, from the standpoint of bargaining, there was nothing whatever in the possession of the Grand Trunk to bargain with-nothing there of reality or of what might he called the equity of the situation. They persist in arguing that the Grand Trunk had nothing in the world to bargain with. Now, is that true? Let us not forget that we are one party to this transaction and that the other parties are more than a hundred thousand shareholders in another country than Canada. Our viewpoint, let me assure this House, is by no means their viewpoint on this question. But they had these weapons to bargain with: They may not have been as powerful as they thought they were, but it would be fatuous on the part of hon. members to come to the conclusion that they had no power or no force at all. In the first place

they believed that it was possible to dispose of the whole system; many of them so believed it as, in their way of putting it, to know it. Those who might have had doubt as to that were quite confident that it was possible to dispose of portions of the system in such form as to put the Government of Canada in a very disadvantageous position, indeed. For example, one vital portion of the system is the line to Portland. That line is owned by a company incorporated over there. If the line to Portland got into such shape that it would not be embraced in the stock ownership of a Canadian company, where then was the Government of Canada? Now, that was the position in respect to that phase of the question that the Grand Trunk were in. It would, therefore, be fatuous to say, did I go no further, that they were in a perfectly helpless position and had no cards, no weapons with which to contract a bargain.
Furthermore, they took this position, and I believe they took it with some assurance and in perfect good faith. It is impossible for us to think that the Grand Trunk did not know that liquidation had terrors for Canada just as well as for them. The disaster of liquidation, bad as it would be for Grand Trunk shareholders, was had for Canada. There are such things as bad bargains for both sides; very often had bargains are bad for both sides. When I condemn, for example, the whole bargain of the Grand Trunk Pacific as bad for Canada, I do not contend that it was not bad for the Grand Trunk too; the only people it was more severe on than on the- Grand Trunk were the people of Canada. Therefore, the problem of liquidation was very much like the problem of the original 'bargain ; there was much that this country had to fear if the Grand Trunk went into liquidation. I will tell you one thing it had to fear. There is, of course, loss of credit, against which we cannot shut our eyes; it is a subject that we cannot afford to treat lightly. We have heard some very weighty speeches in this House from hon. gentlemen opposite, especially from their late distinguished leader, on the real ultimate loss that it would be to this country if a great railway system went into liquidation, particularly when its bondholders were overseas. We have heard weighty speeches from hon. gentlemen opposite on that theme, speeches properly based and soundly reinforced; consequently, from that standpoint there was much that Canada would desire to avoid in the way of liquidation.

But next, liquidation meant the unscrambling of the system; it could mean nothing else. Liquidation meant, for example, that the American lines held by American companies would go to American liquidators. It would hardly be presumed that we would be enabled to carry out our will in regard to companies in American territory, the stock of which is American stock.	[DOT]
As a consequence, liquidation meant the unscrambling of the system and the putting up to auction or the disposal otherwise over there of American concerns, vital parts, in some instances at all events, of the system. Therefore, they were not unconscious of the fact that the Government of Canada, naturally from the standpoint of the public benefit and of the identity of the Grand Trunk system as a system, were "not likely to court the day of liquidation. That was the position. There they stood and there we stood, and after negotiation, we fixed this as what we were ready to do in the hope that we would come to an agreement. But after those terms were made known to the people of Canada, and to this House; after they stood as the terms of Canada and after the policy of the Canadian Government was known for years; and after the company come to those terms and say:	We bend the knee and take
those terms; is it quite fair and right on the part of Canada to-day to say: We will vary the terms, and we will fix them to suit us a little better?
I have argued the matter from the standpoint of bargaining. Let me suggest another consideration. Hon. members of this House have not forgotten the speech delivered on this point by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) some days ago. Let us view the matter from- that- standpoint for a moment, not in any spirit of sympathy, but in the ordinary spirit of justice that I hope animates hon. members and that will continue to animate them even although they feel that perhaps a little political advantage may be gained by deviating from it. If the board of arbitration grant any award at all to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk, then that justifies, in the judgment of the board of arbitration, this guarantee to pay the interest on the guaranteed stock, because there could be no award at all unless it presumes the payment of the interest; for the first money has to go there. If they award anything above the money that goes to pay the interest on the guaranteed stock, that shows that that money would have to go there
even although we arbitrate all the stock. -I hope I have made that clear. Supposing they find that there is no value whatever in the three preference and the common stocks; it {night be possible that they would have found that there was no justification for paying the $2,500,000; but I ask hori. members of this House to view this matter somewhat from the standpoint of an arbiter between two interests. Do. not forget that we are one side of the bargain and that we are very likely to be influenced by the fact that we are one side of the bargain and they the other. If the Board of Arbitration find that there is no. value in those three preference and common stocks, what does that mean? It means that 100,000 people, owning $94,000,000 worth of stock, every dollar of which represents, money that has gone into the Grand Trunk Railway system in this country, a railway that has served Canada for sixty-five years, have lost forever, forfeited that $94,000,000 to the people of Canada. Now, $94,000,000 is a considerable sum. I think the Grand Trunk should be made, not in any spirit of huckstering or to the last Shylock dollar, to pay a good part of the loss in relation ito the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific, but I do not think that if the Grand Trunk shareholders forfeit $94,000,000, it can be said that they have been let off lightly. If $94,000,000 is forfeited to the people of this country-and that amount will be forfeited if no award is given under this arbitration- then we have that $94,000,000 to be credited to the loss, in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Having regard to the whole case from the standpoint of the record down to to-day; having regard to all the circumstances fully disclosed in this paper; having regard to the common equities of the situation, and not forgetting that there is to be an arbitration in Canada where the deciding factor is a Canadian judge and where the two parties are the people of Canada on the one hand and 100,000 people of another country, so far as jurisdiction is concerned, on the other-keeping in mind all those circumstances, and as well those principles that I think are sound and true, it .seems to me to be the part of reason as well as the part of common justice 'to vote down this amendment.
Hon. W. 'S. FIELDING: Mr. Speaker, the historical account that the minister has given is, I am sure, deeply interesting in its place. My misfortune is that I cannot for the life of me see what bearing it has upon the amendment that has been moved by the
[Stage Direction]
hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Campbell). The minister has repeatedly alluded to a sum of $2,500,000 which we have to pay, and one might almost assume from the tone of his speech that this $2,500,000 was a ^um which was to be distributed amongst the Grand Trunk people generally. It was a sort of pooling the issues and leaving them to distribute the amount. At one time in the negotiations something of the kind was suggested, but the plan was abandoned, and nothing of the kind appears in this Bill. There is no pooling of the issues; there is in this transaction no common Grand Trunk interest which is being treated alike. A distinction is made in this Bill between the various classes of the stockholders; some are being highly favoured and others are 12 m. being treated in a manner which my hon. friend would, I suppose, consider as being very harsh. There is not that common interest of the 100,000 people of whom the minister speaks; there are distinct issues and distinct classes of stockholders.
What are the facts? This provision that is made for practically buying the four per cent guaranteed stock, that is, guaranteed only by the Grand Trunk company, at par, is one of the worst features of the Bill, and the amendment of the hon. member for Nelson removes some of the difficulties and makes the agreement in that respect less objectionable. I do not wish to enlarge on this, but we have to go over these things again a little. .The ground that I have repeatedly presented to the House is that this 4 per cent guaranteed stock had a market value of 45 cents on the dollar a few days ago, before the initiation of this legislation. There is no dispute about that; that is a fact; the public records show it. Of course, the moment it was announced that this legislation was to take place, the stock began to increase in value. I have before me a London financial paper of the 18th ultimo which quotes the 4 per cent stock at 60, and I have no doubt that to-day it is higher. While there is an uncertainty, as there is just now, as to the fate of this Bill, there will be a hesitancy in the stock market; but nothing is clearer to my mind at least, than that when it is settled that this measure is going through and that it will become law, that stock will have a further enhanced value. A 4 per cent stock with a guarantee of the Dominion of Canada behind it-I have to repeat myself there- would in normal times be worth par. In the
	.
present financial condition, it would not be worth par; a first-class 4 per cent stock of a colonial Government is to-day worth 84 or 85. Therefore, when this transaction is completed, it is a reasonable contention that this 4 per cent guaranteed stock, guaranteed now by the Grand Trunk company, which guarantee means nothing, but guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada, will become worth 85. What does that mean? That means as between market value of that stock a few days before this legislation began and the market value as it will be when this deal i! consummated, there will be a difference of, say 40 points. Forty points advance on that stock means a clear gain to somebody of $24,000,000; that is to say, the Dominion of Canada is going to buy that stock for $24,000,000 more than its fair'market value.
My hon. friend from London (Mr. Cronyn), who is not present, tried to draw a great distinction the other night between market value and intrinsic value. I am unable to agree with him in his contentions. Intrinsic value as a rule creates market value. Indeed, if there is a difference, especially in the stock market, you will find the market is rather more than the intrinsic value. Let me illustrate that. Suppose a railway has suffered a disaster, an accident of some sort; its property is actually damaged ; the intrinsic value of the property has materially depreciated, but the stock market knows-and they are very keen men on the stock market-that that railway has potentialities, that this condition is only temporary, that the road will be all right in time. So they discount the future and fix a market value on that stock which is more than the intrinsic value. I think it will be found in the stock market, where-ever th,ere is a difference between intrinsic and market value, that the market value will be the higher. The only illustration the hon. member gave the other night was that of the Northern Pacific. That would not occur once in a blue moon; it is not a fair illustration at all. In that case the stock had an intrinsic value of 80 and a market value of 1,000. Why? Because two or three sets of speculators were trying to get control. There is no fair analogy in that at all. That was an utterly unusual and exceptional situation. That is not our situation. We are not trying to get control of the 4 per cent stock. The market value of that stock was its intrinsic value, and the intrinsic and market value was 45 cents on the dollar. By this Bill, unless -we accept the amendment of my hon. friend, we are going to make it worth practically $24,000,-

000	more than it was. That difference may not go into the hands of the old Grand Trunk stockholders.
Again and again we have been told about the sympathy for these English shareholders, and the claims of the English widow have been presented again and again.
1	am very much of opinion that the English widow who invested in Grand Trunk stocks many years ago has passed to heaven by this time, and the stocks to-day are to be found in the hands of other people, perhaps not English, and certainly not widows. I am going to assume for a moment that there is a widow somewhere in England, and I am going to ask you to consider the condition of the English widow and of the Canadian widow. The Canadian widow, perhaps a soldier's widow, goes to one of our savings	banks with one hundredpounds.	She	does not	understand
Victory bonds, many people do not, and she wants to put her money where she can get it easily, so she puts it in the savings bank. She is allowed 3 per cent-an excellent, sound, business transaction. At the same time the English widow goes to the Minister of Finance and says: " I have one hundred pounds that I have been investing. What can you do for me?" " Have you the cash?" she is asked. " If so, we will give you 3 per cent in the bank." " No, I have bought Grand Trunk stocks with it," she replies, " at 50 cents on the dollar. If I had been right smart I would have bought at 45. I have two shares here now, nominally of one hundred pounds each. I paid for these two shares 100 pounds. Nominally they are called 200 pounds of stock, but I paid only 100 pounds for them." The Minister of Finance says: " That is all right, we will give you 4 per cent on your 100 pounds. We will do better than that. We will give you 4 per cent on the 100 pounds you invested, and 4 per cent on another 100 pounds you did not invest. We will call your 10ft pounds 200 pounds, and give you 4 per cent on it. In other words, we will pay you 8 per cent, and the Canadian soldier's widow only 3 per cent." That is what this transaction means if w-e are going to pay for this stock on the basis of this Bill at par, or approaching par, when its real market value is only about 45 cents on the dollar. We are going to pay a large sum of money under this Bill, which may not go into the hands of the old Grand Trunk stockholders, but into the hands of speculators who have advanced the stock from 45 to GO and perhaps 70, and will advance it further.
What is wrong in asking that there be an arbitration on that stock? Why do hon. gentlemen draw a distinction in saying it is a cruel thing to have that stock arbitrated on, but all right in the case of the other stock? I see no reason at all for it. If it is wrong and cruel to have an arbitration on the guaranteed 4 per cent stock, is it not equally wrong and cruel to have arbitration on the other stocks? Why do we take these favoured 4 per cent people and give them a clean gift of $20,000,000 or $30,000,000, and then tell the other man he has to submit his stock to arbitration? It is an actual fact that one of the preference stocks is actually worth more money to-day than the 4 percent guaranteed stock. The guaranteed stock is quoted	here at	GO	cents	on
the dollar and the	first preference
at 66. I have seen no explanation fo-r that. Why	do	we	say to	thefavoured man with the 4 per cent stock: " You do	not	have	to	submit toarbitration. We	will	make	it	dead	sure
for you at the expense of the Canadian people," and to the man who holds the first preference stock, " You have to take your chance under arbitration." I cannot see any reason for it at all. It seems to me that the sound policy, if there is any merit in arbitration, is that which the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Campbell) has set forth. If there is to be an arbitration, by all means let it cover all the stocks. If the stock is worth one hundred cents on the dollar, and the stockholders think they can show it, give them a chance to do it. But to make it worth one hundred cents on the dollar without arbitration and at the expense of the Canadian people, while at the same time making the preference stocks submit to arbitration, is not justice. It is a clear advantage at the expense of the Canadian people which is being given tc one favoured class of stockholders, while the others are left to the wolves, or the arbitrators.
John Hampden Burnham: Is it true, as my hon. friend has said, that the fact of the Government entering into this bargain means the penalizing of the people of Canada to the extent of many millions of dollars with regard to the guaranteed stock? Is it true that the stock which appears on the market at a certain sum, and for which, if nothing intervenes, its owners would get that sum, will, on account of the Dominion of Canada entering into this agreement receive from that adventitious circumstance a very large

additional value representing the difference between the market price a few days ago and par?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Minister of the Interior has spoken, and he has no right under the rules to speak again. If he chooses to ask the consent of the House, under the peculiar circumstances it may be granted. Otherwise, it will not be competent for him to speak again.


Arthur Meighen: The answer is, no.


John Hampden Burnham: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no objection to the minister answering.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member asks if it is true that the people of Canada -are paying large sums of money to the guaranteed stockholders. It absolutely is not so. The company has always paid that dividend except in the last two years, when it was earned, but was kept in reserve. Naturally the effect of the Government's proposals has been a slight appreciation. Hon, gentlemen make quotations from the market, and then add a whole lot as to what is likely to take place in the future when money gets cheap. The fact is the appreciation has been slight. We are getting in return a surrender of all voting power, a surrender which we have to have, and which we cannot get unless we give something. The fact that the preference stock increases too in value because this transaction with the Government takes place* indicates that no matter what you do there will be that *appreciation. The same took place in 1903, altogether unwarranted as results afterwards showed. It is taking place not to any great degree but to a slight degree, but that is merely a return of a little in nominal value of the stocks where they have gone down five times or three or four times the amount in recent years. We simply pay the four per cent interest on the guaranteed stock which the company have always earned but did not pay for *the last two years because they felt they should keep it in reserve.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend and I will differ in our inferences and arguments, but does he deny any statement of fact I made in my recent remarks?


Arthur Meighen: I deny the statement of prophecy. I do not say that the stock, has not gone to 60, although I have never seen that quotation myself. But that is not very much of an appreciation. It was
fMr. Burnham.] .
48 or 50 before the agreement and it went to 55, and the preference stock went up too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not intend to participate in the discussion of this amendment, but I should like to read to the House section 5 of the Bill as amended. It says:
The present guaranteed stock and the new guaranteed stock, or any part thereof, may be called in or redeemed by the Government, at par, at any time after five years from the date of the appointment of the said Committee of Management, on six months' notice, Iby advertisement, to the holders thereof.
In other words, if the Government were purchasing this system at the present time it would buy it at the market value. This Bill makes it impossible to purchase that same stock until after five years, and then it is only purchasable at par. The Act speaks for itself and answers conclusively the hon. gentleman's question.


Mr. OAHILL:: 
Mr. PETER McGIBBON:: Do you think that people holding stock which has paid four per cent are going to throw it on the market at 45?


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend is apparently in the same position as some other hon. gentlemen opposite. They believe what the Government tell them instead of reading for themselves the evidence that is presented.


Peter Robert McGibbon: Do you deny that they paid four per-cent?


Frank S. Cahill: This book will show, it the hon. member wishes to refer to it, that they did not pay four per-cent last year or the year before, and the Drayton-Acworth report says that they did not earn it for the lest ten years. Hon. members are arguing with one book in one hand and another book in the other hand, and are being bamboozled by the Government for the benefit of their friends. Now, Mr. Speaker, when hon. members talk about widows and orphans, this is the most unfair thing that can be done so far as those people are concerned. The stock that is to be arbitrated is the minority stock and has absolutely no''voice. The Government took good care to see to that on behalf of their Grand Trunk friends. They guaranteed the debenture stock or bonds, some of which were worth 66 and some 78. All of those stocks constitute the majority and can vote for the Grand Trunk as to whether they will arbitrate or not, and the widow and orphan have not a chance in the world of expressing a voice. The Government took good care of their friends first; not the widow and orphan, but the rich speculators in London, the friends of the Government who are taking advantage of this. If you will refer to the London Times, Mr. Speaker, you will see that on the 15th of October, six days after this transaction was brought into the House the guaranteed [DOT] stock had advanced $9,000,060, on the London stock exchange. The total of the first, second and third preference and common stocks had advanced no less than $14,000,000 on the stock exohange in those six days. There is absolutely no justification for it, If the Government want to deal fairly with the stockholders they ought to arbitrate the value of the stock and deduct any payment that is due to the people of Canada. That should be generous enough. I therefore will support the amendment.


John Howard Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I would not intervene in this debate at this late hour, but I am paired with the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart) and I will not be permitted to vote. I want to place myself on record as being in favour of this amendment. This stock which has been discussed for the last hour is nothing more nor less than common stock. It may be treated internally by the Grand Trunk as a sort of preferred stock but it has no lien on the physical assets of the road, it has no mortgage behind it and it has no rights in respect to the payment of dividends unless the dividends are earned. We know that

in the last few years dividends were not earned and they were not paid on this stock. What does the Minister of the Interior do? He is to meet the directors of the Grand Trunk to deal with the question and his very first step is to raise the price of the thing that he is proposing to buy. At the time that he was negotiating for this stock it was worth 45, or less than 45. He puts the imprint of the Dominion of Canada on it and he agrees to exchange for it a four per cent bond of the Dominion of Canada thus raising the price of the thing that he is going to buy by at least $20,000,000. That is an improper step for the hon. gentleman to take. It was his duty, representing the Government and people of Canada, to get that stock at the very best price that he could get it for. He has not given the House any fair reason why he should raise the price of the stock that he is proposing to buy for the ratepayers of this country by at least $20,000,000.	,
The right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) in 1918 took a very reasonable view of this matter. At that time he sent a message to the High Commissioner in London in which he said:
The Government is disposed to assist in every reasonable way the maintenance of Company's credit as is evidenced by the advance of one hundred and twenty-two thousand pounds on July first and by our offer of 12th July last to advance three hundred and eighty thousand pounds to meet fixed charges upon terms which were regarded as reasonable but which the company declined. We shall be glad to have any further suggestions from Smithers as to methods of assistance. There is strong objection in council to any increase of our offer for the following reasons: it is most unwise and undesirable for a government without the report of a commission or board of arbitration or a vote of Parliament to undertake a large annual payment which would represent the capitalization of eighty or a hundrei million dollars. The offer already made is based on the Drayton-Aeworth report which affords a sufficient foundation for Government's proposal. If we go beyond the bounds of that report we have ho certain guide as to what we should propose, Council will not accept either of the offers which Smithers put forward and unless they receive further offer before end of month they still consider negotiations at an end.
The (Prime Minister says there is strong objection in Council to increasing the offer. If we had this strong objection in 1918 to any increase in the offer has anything happened in London or anywhere else to remove that objection? The. Prime Minister says that the foundation is the Drayton-Aeworth report. Have the Government any other foundation upon, which to offer anything in regard to this transaction? No one will con-[Mr. Sinclair.!

tend that the Drayton-Aeworth report gives them authority to guarantee this $60,000,000 of stock. On the contrary, the Drayton-Ac-worth report says that the stock is absolutely worthless or of very small value. That is what the Prime Minister said about the stock. But with these facts before him, in face of the opinion given by the Prime Minister in 1918, and notwithstanding the statement contained in the Drayton-Aeworth report, my hon. friend puts the stamp of the Dominion of Canada on that $60,000,000, unnecessarily, impudently, and it becomes worth almost par, or, as the Finance Minister says, 85.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have to buy it at par.


John Howard Sinclair: We will, of course, have to redeem it at par when we redeem it later on. There is no justification for it and the minister has not been able to give any. That being the case, the House will do wisely and well to vote for this amendment.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the question of the enhancement of the value of the stock has very much bearing on the actual value of the stock. As a matter of fact, throughout the world during the last month there has been wild speculation in stocks. We are only guaranteeing to pay four per cent interest on this guaranteed stock. If the London market wants to speculate on that guarantee it is perfectly welcome to do so. We do not have to take that stock at par now. We can in five years, according to the arrangement, give six months' notice and take that stock at par. We have the interest on $2,000,000 to meet at five and a half per cent, and it will be a long time after five years have elapsed, in my judgment, before we will be willing to take up a four per cent stock at par. If we had submitted this stock to arbitration do you suppose that there are any arbitrators who would not allow the value to the stock equal to 60 cents on the dollar? Do you suppose, considering the past history of the Grand Trunk, that there are any arbitrators that would not allow a basis of 60 cents on the dollar for a four per cent stock? The other four stocks that are going to arbitration have advanced in value in the market to an extent equal to the advance in the case of this stock simply because they are going to arbitration. It is simply a matter of speculation. I could tell you of a stock that went up to 405 the day before yesterday, although it is only paying ten per cent. That is General Motors. There are plenty of Canadian stocks which, al-

though only paying five per cent, are selling at 85, 87 and 90. The fact that the stock has advanced in value a little 'bit because the Government proposes to buy this road is nothing new. It is purely a matter of speculation. We are put in a far better position, in my judgment, by not arbitrating on the value of this four per cent guaranteed stock. We can pay the four per cent as long as we wish to. We cannot borrow money to take it up at that. If the arbitrators were to set a value on the stock of 60 cents on the dollar we would have to borrow the money at five and a half per cent to take it up, whereas we can carry it for a great number of years if we wish to at four per cent. Some of the members of this House have been anxious to have that time reduced, but in my judgment it will be many years before money gets back to four per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: When my hon. friend says that we will have to borrow money at five per cent he has forgotten that we do not have to do anything of the kind. We pay the new stock at four per cent,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, that is right.
Amendment, Mr. Campbell, negatived on the following division:


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question is now on the main motion.	
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): Mr.	
Speaker, three amendments to the motion	

for the third reading of this Bill have already been presented and successively defeated, and in rising to move a fourth amendment-however reasonable and fair it may appear to me-I am not deluding my mind with any false hopes as to the fate reserved for it. I know the determination of the Government to pass this legislation at all costs, and I know the strength of the barriers which they have erected between the partisan and narrow attitude which they have unfortunately assumed and the broad, enlightened and national spirit which should have governed this transaction. I am therefore not seeking for a success, which I do not anticipate, although I am in quest of something of no less value than success. My object, and the only success which I hope to achieve, is to fulfil for myself what I consider to be a duty, and afford in the meantime to hon. members who think as I do an opportunity of placing themselves on record as defenders of the prerogatives of Parliament and the rights of the people. If this aim alone, and nothing else, should be accomplished through the instrumentality of this amendment I aver that in moving it I shall not have unduly occupied the time of this House. Mr. Speaker, at this late hour when the House has been sitting since eleven o'clock this morning, I cannot but make reference to the promise which was made by the Minister of the Interior when this measure was presented to us, to the effect that full opportunity would be given hon. members for the discussion of it. I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman is now in his seat and I ask him, through you, Sir, if he still maintains his assertion that full opportunity is now being given to discuss this measure, when the House has been sitting' since eleven o'clock on Tuesday morning and it is now one o'clock Wednesday morning, and there is no thought oE adjourning.


Arthur Meighen: The longer the time we give the House, the fuller the opportunity.


Mr. DENIS:: They say that irrespective of the merits of public ownership, the peculiar circumstances of the railw-ay situation make it imperative that they should acquire this road, and that those who tare opposed to the principle of public ownership should vote for the Bill in any event because the country is simply bound to take over the Grand Trunk. Then hon. members, in extenuation of their own unenviable position in this matter, are introducing the bugaboo of the Canadian Pacific railway desiring to buy the Grand Trunk, as if this proposition were feasible, and' as if the Government could not compete with the Canadian Pacific railway and take all necessary means to acquire this road themselves. One thing is certain, and that is that the Canadian Pacific railway would never buy a concern like the Grand Trunk at the price which the Government is paying for it. No hon, member need have any fear on that secure, for the Canadian Pacific railway are excellent business men and would not sacrifice their interests in acquiring the Grand Trunk at the tremendous cost which it means to us. The management of the Canadian Pacific railway run their affairs as business men, whereas the Government are going into this transaction purely from a sentimental standpoint. They say that we should acquire this railroad in order that we may have one vast national system, whether it pays or not, and in order, further, that the widows and orphans in England who placed1 their capital in this enterprise shall not suffer. I wonder if hon. members opposite are aware that the greater part of the railroads of the United States have been built with British capital, half of which has been lost in the last fifty years by reason of railway bankruptcies. British capital has been lost to the extent of hundreds of millions in the railroads of the United States, and I should like to know of one instance in which the Americans considered it their duty to save the credit of their country by recouping the British people who had invested their money in those railroads.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that the amendment which I shall propose has not for its object the defeating of the Bill, nor does it seek to prevent the country from becoming the owners of the Grand Trunk. It is simply an act of wisdom, providing that before signing the check for this property we shall see the entries in the books. Before we sign the check for $500,000,000, we want to see that everything is all right and that the arbitrators whom we (have appointed have come

to a proper decision. If the award is unsatisfactory we may discard it, and if it is satisfactory we may endorse it. Let me say that this amendment is not a challenge to the Government or to any one who desires that this. Bill should be passed. It is simply a measure of precaution, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler):
That all the words after the word " that " in the main motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
" Bill No. 33 be not now read a third time but that said Bill he referred back to the Committee of the "Whole House with instructions that they have power to amend same by adding at the end of section 6 thereof the following words:
" No award of the arbitrators shall be final and valid until it has been approved of and ratified by the Parliament of Canada."


Mr. FRASER:: I am paired with the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Gladu).


Mr. GEORGE PARENT (West Quebec):: Mr. Speaker, being from Quebec city it goes without saying that I am not sectional. I am one of those who happened to be a member of this House in 1904, the year when the question of the Grand Trunk Pacific, which had been dealt with by Parliament during the previous session, was a subject of discussion all over the country. I am one of those who at that time supported the 110
policy which we advocated before the people of this country of having a line of railway running from the West to the East, from the Pacific to the Atlantic in order to carry Canadian trade through Canadian ports. We believed that such a policy would meet the views of the people and serve the best interests of the country. Many of the hon. members who, I notice, are sitting on the other side of the House now, have 'been advocating that policy on the hustings and I was very much surprised when it came to the vote a little while ago to observe that they voted against that policy after they had heard the speeches of the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) and the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). Can it be that they are sincere in to-day advocating a policy which is directly contrary to the policy of the Liberal party which they supported in 1904 and 1908? I am one of those who are naturally inclined to believe that when the people say that a certain thing should be done that is a reason for doing that thing, and that we cannot do wrong if we go back to the people and say that we have carried out their views. I do not understand why these men who have been advocating that very same policy for such a long time should come here to-day and vote exactly contrary to the convictions which they supported before the people of this country in 1904, 1908 and up to 1911, I said that I was not sectional, and I am not; but there is one thing I believe I have at heart, and that is to see Canadian trade going over Canadian routes and -through Canadian ports. If there is one thing that I can say for the policy of the Liberal party it is that it meant the gathering of freight from the West and its shipment through Canadian ports. That is the policy that I would like to support. I am sorry to say that as a result of the policy that the Government is adopting all that the Liberals had in view is going to be thrown to the winds. I can easily understand that private companies such as the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern, if it were still in existence, can divert traffic whgrever they like. It is their own business, subject to a certain degree of Government supervision. But when I see that the Government itself proposes to undertake the control of railways, with a view to diverting trade from Canadian ports to American ports I am at a loss to understand how such a policy can be justified. What do the people want? They



want to have our own ports developed. You may leave railway operation to private companies, but you must control them and prevent them from diverting the traffic to the detriment of our own ports. But how can the country support a Government that wants to divert our own Canadian trade from Canadian, ports and send it to American ports? That is what the present Government is doing. Here is the situation: The Grand Trunk for years past has been se'nding all its trade through Portland, an American port. It has in the United States many hundreds of miles of railway. These lines will be owned and controlled by the Government, and in view of the necessity of returning some revenues the Government will have to send the trade over there. It will be an enormous detriment to the Canadian people and to our ports to send our trade to American ports. I am against that policy. There are on the other side of the House some important men coming from the Maritime Provinces. I believe that they are no more sectional than I am. I see the minister-I do not know what department he represents (Mr. A. K. Maclean)-who comes from the Maritime Provinces. Not only would he not adopt that policy, but he would do anything he could ,to defeat it if he were really representing the views of the people of the Maritime Provinces. There is another point which to my mind is also important. Whether the Government seeks to conceal itself behind this shadow of the Grand Trunk Company or not, the fact remains that by controlling the stock it controls the company. That may bring about international complications.
I can see at no far distant date where labour conditions in the United States will be different from what they are in Canada and there may be in the former country certain organizations, comprising thousands of employees, holding different views from those which may be entertained by Canadian labour. Complications may in that way arise, and also from many other causes. The United States Government would then be under the necessity of protecting thdir own citizens on the other side of the line, bringing about international complications and with what other results? Those we do not know, but if certain of the jingo element in this country entertain a fear lest there be annexation, there cannot be any better means of bringing about that result than the policy which the Government are now advocating. For these reasons, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon): fMr. Parent.!
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that the House do come to the following resolution:
That the Grand Trunk Railway system which the Government proposes to acquire, comprises many miles of railway lines on American soil;
That the Grand Trunk Railway Company has diverted most of its traffic from Canadian port's to its United States terminals:
That a continuance of such policy by the Canadian Government would be injurious to Canadian trade and detrimental to our national welfare ;
That the ownership by the Canadian Government of the American section of the Grand Trunk railway would involve this country in international troubles respecting labour administration and public policy;
That for the above-mentioned reasons, the acquisition of these lines means a serious danger of the annexation of Canada by the United States;
That the House is of opinion that before taking action towards the acquisition of the railway referred to the Government should give an immediate assurance to this House that it does not intend to divert Canadian trade from Canadian ports by taking over that portion of the Grand Trunk railway situated and operated in the United States.


John Dowsley Reid: Lost on the same division.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Shall I declare the amendment lost on the same division?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, yeas and
nays.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Mr. -Speaker, may I ask if that is an amendment to the motion for the third reading of the Bill?
Amendment, Mr. Parent, negatived on the following division:

Messieurs :
Argue,	Arthurs,
Armstrong (Lambton), Best,

Blair,	McGibbon (Muskoka),
Bolton,	McGregor,
Boyce,	Mclsaac,
Brien,	McQuarrie,
Buchanan,	Maharg,
Burnham,	Manion,
Burrell,	Marshall,
Calder,	Martin,
Casselman,	Meighen,
Chaplin,	Merner,
Clark (Bruce),	Morphy,
Clarke (Wellington),	Mowat,
Clements,	Munson,
Cooper,	Myers,
Cowan,	Nesbitt,
Crowe,	Nicholson (Algoma),
Cruise,	Pardee,
Davidson,	Porter,
Davis,	Redman,
Douglas (Strahcona ),	Reid (Grenville),
Douglas (Cape	Reid (Mackenzie),
Breton S. & Rich.),	Richardson,
Edwards,	Sexsmith, [DOT] [DOT]
Euler,	Shaw,
Finley,	Sifton,
Fripp,	Sampson,
Griesbach,	Smith,
Guthrie,	Steele,
Halladay,	Stevens,
Harold,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Harrison.	Sutherland,
Hartt,	Thompson (Weyburn),
Hay,	Thompson (Hastings),
Henders,	Thompson (Yukon),
Hepburn,	Thompson (Qu'Appelle)
Keefer,	Tweedie,
Kennedy,	Knox,
Long.	Lalor,
Mackie (Renfrew),	Lang,
Maclean (Halifax),	Wallace,
MacNutt,	Wilson (Saskatoon),
McColg,	Wright-87.

Reid (Mackenzie) Richardson '
Sexsmith
Shaw
Sifton
Simpson
Smith
Steele
Stevens
Stewart (Hamilton)
Sutherland
Thompson (Weyburn) Thompson (Hastings) Thompson (Yukon) Thomson (Qu'Appelle) Tweedie Wallace
Wilson (Saskatoon) Wright.-84.

(The list of pairs is supplied hy the Chief Whips.)
. Messieurs :
Borden
Doherty
Green,
White, Sir T. Wilson, G.
Stacey
Stewart (Lanark)
Kemp
Mewburn
McCurdy
Spinney
Scott
Drayton
Fraser
Blake
Crothers
Bowman
Allan
Crerar
Cronyn
Hughes
Rowell,
Loggie Charters Chabot Charlton Foster, Sir G.
Demieux
Marcil
White (Victoria) McMaster Beland Baldwin Sinclair, J. H.
(Antigonish)
Trahan Verville Chisholm Sinclair (Q.)
Powers
Lavigueur
Gladu
Jacobs
Ethier
Ross
Lesage
Leduc
Cardin

DuTremblay
Bureau
Truax
Devlin
Gauvreau
Turgeon
Motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways) for the third reading of the Bill agreed to on the same division reversed, and Bill read the third time and passed,



ADJOURNMENT UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK WEDNESDAY.

John Dowsley Reid: As we have sat rather late to-ruight, I move:
That when the House do adjourn this day, it stand adjourned until Wednesday at three o'clock in the afternoon.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion, of course, can only be entertained by unanimous consent.	i


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 2.30 a.m. (Wednesday).

Wednesday, November 5, 1919.