INTEREST ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr.  W. D.@: STAPLES (Macdonald) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 146) to amend the Interest Act. He said:	The
object of this Bill is to remedy certain grievances which at present exist, more particularly in the western provinces, where there is a great deal of buying and selling of land. For instance, if a farmer wishes to increase the amount of a loan on his land, he is at the mercy of the company which has made the existing loan, and if he desires to pay off the loan, he has to pay the bonus stipulated in the mortgage, which is sometimes very excessive. This measure is proposed for the purpose of remedying these grievances, and making it easier to conduct business in the buying and selling of land in the west.


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


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 138) for the relief of Gertrude Maud Grant.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 140) for the relief of Mary Hamilton Johnston.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 141) for the relief of Dalton Mabel Stapleton.-Mr. Tolmie.

Mr. SPROULE.: Before the Orders of the Day are taken up, I notice that a good deal of interest is being exhibited at the present time in the suggestion of Sir Edward Grey as to the desirability and the possibility of obtaining an arbitration treaty between England and the United States. As this would appear to be a matter of very great and far-reaching importance, in which I have no doubt Canada as well as the mother country and the United States is interested, equally with all other civilized countries in the world, I would like to ask the government if they have had any communication with the Imperial government or with the United States government on this subject, and if so, if they have anything which they can communicate to the House and through the House to the country?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The government has received no communication whatever, either from the Imperial authorities or from the United States on this very important subject; but I have no hesitation in adding that if it were in the power of Canada in any way to help towards such a laudable object, we would be only too glad to do so.



THE GOVERNMENT'S TRADE POLICY.

Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked the Prime Minister a question which you, Sir, cut off, so that he could not answer. It was in connection with a matter brought up by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell), that is, a speech made by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), in regard to which the Prime Minister said:
The statement made by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was quite consistent with our policy, it was nothing new, and he had perfect authority, not only he but every member of the Liberal side, to make that statement.
I asked the right hon. the Prime Minister, what I would like to repeat now, whether his remarks also applied to the British preference?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think, Mr. Speaker, that our policy is generally well known; but if it needs to be further explained, it will be in the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. STAPLES.: 


Mr. BLAIN.: If I understood correctly the Prime Minister's statement in reply to the hon. member for Dauphin, it was that every Liberal member had the liberty of making the statement, it being the policy of the government. Would not the members of the opposition have the same liberty?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes; and I would hope they would avail themselves of it.


Mr. FOSTER.: This suggests the question :	About what time may we expect the
Budget speech to be delivered?


Mr. FIELDING.: The House has been occupied so long in a discussion which has taken the form of a Budget debate that we have not been able to reach the Budget proper. It will be brought down, however, at an early date.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. NEELY.

Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt).: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the patience of the House for a few moments on a question of privilege. In a somewhat heated incident which occurred in the House on Friday afternoon, of whieh the member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) and myself were among the chief actors, a statement was made by the member for Dauphin which I did not catch at the time, but which I find reported in the public press of the country, and also in the Unrevised ' Hansard. As this statement, or insinuation, contained in a certain question asked by the member for Dauphin, reflects very seriously on my honour as a member of this House, and has been sent broadcast throughout the country, I think it only fair that it should be taken into consideration. On page 5669 of ' Hansard ' appears the following statement:


Mr. CAMPBELL.: He had better talk of his honesty? Where is the capital of Saskatchewan? What does it cost to vote for it?
And on the next page the member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes), referring to some remarks which I had made in reference to the member for Dauphin, made this statement:
Did he sell the capital of Saskatchewan?
At the moment there was so much confusion in the House that I did not catch the words of the member for Dauphin, and I did not know that he had made use of such words until I saw them in the columns of the public press on the following day. I did catch the word ' honesty ' but the rest of the statement I did not catch; and as it reflects very seriously upon me, as a member of this House, I rise to a question of personal explanation and privilege. If the House will pardon me a moment, I should find it necessary to explain,to some

extent what my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) referred to. As many hon. members know, it was my good or ill fortune to be a member of the first legislature of the province of Saskatchewan; and one of the .first important questions that came before that legislature was the question of the location of the capital. It so happened that the majority of the supporters of the government of that province came from the northern part of Saskatchewan; and in the west it is well known that the two chief competitors or rivals for the honour of being the capital were the cities of Saskatoon in the north and Regina in the south. I am free to say that, on the part of many of us, our personal inclinations were in favour of Saskatoon; but when we came to Regina and the question came to be decided, we discovered that the government intended to deal with it as a government mdbsure and had decided to make the capital where it had been for many years, in the old city of Regina. Some of us had even gone so far as to express publicly I was not one of them-our preference for the selection of Saskatoon, but as the government had made the choice of Regina a government measure, we decided to support the government rather than insist on our personal preference, and I personally have no regret for the action I then took. In the debate in the provincial legislature a certain member of the opposition twitted government supporters with having supported the government measure against their own sentiment and suggested that coercion had been used by the First Minister of Saskatchewan in order to compel them to do so. He also went so far as to make the insinuation that possibly the first minister, or some one on his behalf, had used other means to induce his followers to support it. But upon being challenged by the first minister to make good his insinuation, he refused to make any charge against any supporter of the government and the incident closed so far as the House was concerned and no reference was made to it afterwards. The opposition press of the province, however, took up the insinuation and published it broadcast. That insinuation was to the effect that the government of Saskatchewan or its prime minister, or some one on his behalf, had used other means than persuasion to influence certain members to support the government in its location of the capital. In the general election which followed, these insinuations were not believed by the people, and the men who were subjected to them were returned to' parliament. It would appear that a lie has sometimes a long life, and these slanderous insinuations were again brought to life in the debate on Friday last by the hon. members for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) and Dauphin (Mr. Campbell). It has been my
privilege to serve the constituency of Humboldt not only in this House, the short time I have been here, but during the first term of the legislature ui Saskatchewan, and I want to say to my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell), who has repeated the insinuation, that, so far as I am personally concerned, if he can adduce one particle of proof that, in my public capacity as a representative of the constituency of Humboldt, either in the local legislature or this House, I have ever done anything or cast a single vote for financial reward or hope of financial reward or from any other motive than a sense of public duty, I shall forfeit my seat in this House. I want to go further and say that if, as the representative of the people, he can find one single instance in which I have rendered a service to a constituent of mine, as a public man, for financial reward or hope of financial reward, my seat its vacant in this House. I did make a certain statement with reference to the hon. member for Dauphin on Friday last, which he denied. That statement was that he had said a certain thing in the last local election in the province of Manitoba. He denied having made that statement and I accepted hiiis denial. I accepted it as an acceptance due from one hon. member to another. And to-day I appeal to the hon. gentleman, as an appeal from man to man, that he should either withdraw the insinuation he made or let me know-and I think it is only fair that I should know- what foundation he had for making it. As I have done him the credit of accepting his denial, just as I would accept the statement of any member of this House, I appeal to him either to accept the denial that I make of the insinuation he cast upon me or furnish some proof of it.


Glenlyon Campbell: I have listened very carefully to what has been said by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely). There is no man in this House who regrets an incident such as that which occurred on Friday night more than I do. But while I say that, I wish the House to understand that I do not consider myself in the least degree responsible. We all regret instances of that kind. We all at times, under provocation, are apt to forget what is due from one to the other, and are apt to make statements off the bat which are perhaps too emphatic and not capable perhaps of being proven to our satisfaction. The speech just made by my hon. friend from Humboldt gives the answer to the question that he propounded to me. What I said on the floor of this House contained no specific charge against the hon. member, but of course he is at liberty to put on it what interpretation he chooses. He has himself admitted-and I do not propose to

adduce any other evidence than what he has himself given with regard to the innuendo-that it was stated on the floor of the Saskatchewan legislature that other means had been used to persuade members from the north of the province to vote foT the choice of Regina as a location for the capital of that province instead of Saskatoon. That was my authority for making the remarks I did. It was stated, under flaring headlines, in the newspapers in the northwest, that some influences had been brought to bear, not party or political influences, but others, to induce members to deviate from their loyalty to the town in their own part of the country, Saskatoon, to which they were pledged to give their support in the question of whether Regina or Saskatoon should-


David Bradley Neely: The hon. gentleman (Mt. Campbell) is wrong. No man was- pledged.


Glenlyon Campbell: What pledges a man,. Mr. Speaker? Is a promise given to a friend not a pledge? I leave it to ' Hansard ' to say whether the hon. member (Mr. Neely), in his remarks a few'anomemts ago^ did not state that some had made a pTo-mise to their friends, and, for my part, I consider a promise made is a debt unpaid.


David Bradley Neely: I did not say anything of the kind; I said they had expressed sentiments in favour.


Glenlyon Campbell: I was careful not to interrupt the hon. .member when he was speaking. I have the desire that every member of this House has, to have every member, regardless of his party politics, appear at his best; and that is the reason I did not interrupt him. But we have from him now an interruption of my words. I do not desire this House to ask for me, and I do not intend to give them, an interpretation of my words. I am quite willing to accept the interpretation put upon my words by the hon. member for Humboldt. At the same time, I want to tell him, when he gets up in this House and sayis that the facts of the case do not bear out the interpretation that he himself put on my words, I aim quite willing, as a member of this House, to- accept his word frankly and freely. I think that thiat is all that is necessary to settle the matter.



PRIVILEGE-VALUATION OF THE YACHT 'WANDA.'

Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: It is not often that I rise in this House to a question of privilege,- I do not know that I ever have done it before. I would wait for the motion which is expected within' a short time to bring forward the matter to which I wish to speak, but, as I have to refer to a past debate, I might be ruled out of order. The Mr. CAMPBELL.
hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) on Thursday last, as will be seen by referring to page 5584 of ' Hansard,' speaking when I was not in the House, spoke of a matter that had taken place in the Customs. I have the return before me, but if bon. members will refer to ' Hansard,' they can trace the whole transaction showing that it was carried out in the ordinary course of the business of the department. Yet it was placed before this House in a light that is unfair,-I need not use a -stronger word-unjust, very unfair and veTy unjust, to the officers of my department. I, therefore, on their behalf, wish to bring the matter before the House. The case referred to was that of a yacht that had been bought by Mr. Travers-or, rather, not bought, but received by him as a gift, and, as a gift, of course,,-unaccompanied by an invoice. The usual course was followed. There had to be a valuation by one of our -appraisers -duly qualified for that purpose and that was dome. Mr. Travers wrote to Mr. Calvert to ask him if he would bring the matter before the commissioner. He had a conversation with the commissioner, and, subsequently, be wrote a letter to the commissioner. I will not take up the -time of the House by reading the whole correspondence, -as it is given in ' Hansard,' at the page already referred to, but I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as hon. members on this side, to go- through the whole matter so that they may see how very, very unfair and unjust the hon. gentleman was in -the remarks he made at that time and -the conclusions he sought to draw from th-e facts he gave. This was am ordinary transaction. The hon. member (Mr. Sharpe, Ontario) makes the point: Why did not Mr. T-ravers write to the Customs Department himself? Why did he ask Mr. Calvert, the Liberal -whip, to do it? There is not a week passes but members of piarliament bring matters- before my department with reference to their constituents, and sometimes with reference to those who -are not their constituents. The hon. member (Mr. Sharpe, Ontario) is surrounded by those who have done the same thing. They bring these matters to our department, and they are examined into, their representations are heard, and then the department does w-hat it considers to be right in th-e matter. That was wh-aft was done, and that is- -all that was done in this case. The hon. gentleman from North Ontario omitted reading the letter from Mr. Travers to Mr. Calvert in which he asked Mr. Calvert to have the departmental machinery to he used in making valuations put in motion, -at least that letter is not in ' Hansard.'


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: Was that letter in the return brought down?


William Paterson: I think it was. It is1 in the papers before me which purport to be a copy of that return.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think I read the whole correspondence.


William Paterson: I refer hon. members' to show that that letter is not there. The hon. member (Mr. Sharpe, Ontario) said:
Not only did Mr. Calvert exercise his influence with the Einance Department in connection with the passing of this certificate through the Treasury Board, but he exercised his influence with the Customs Department on behalf of Mr. Travers. I moved for a return the other day in connection with a pleasure yacht which Travers had transferred from the register at Detroit to Brockville. Mr. Calvert seems to have been under some obligation and Mr. Travers wrote to him, August 18, 1909, just when everybody was clamouring for an investigation, when the insurance department of New York State was asking for an investigation into the affairs of the bank. Mr. Travers was doing everything he could to stave off that investigation. Instead of writing direct to the Customs Department we find him writing to Mr. Calvert as follows:
Then, after reading that letter, the hon. gentleman comments as follows:
That is about a month after the loan to Mr. Calvert. Travers writes to him asking him to get his boat passed at a low valuation. Mr. Calvert writes to Mr. McDougald, Commissioner of Customs, on the 19th of August, after having a personal conversation with that gentleman. His letter reads:
Then he Teads the letter sent by Mr. Calvert and comments further in the following words:
So you see Mr. Calvert, the Liberal whip, had personally interviewed the Commissioner of Customs with a view to getting the boat through the Customs at a low valuation, and actually suggested the valuation. If the Minister of Customs were here I would ask if that is the way the Customs Department is managed. This transaction came to light by accident, and I would ask how many entries are made through the Customs Department on the advice of the Liberal whip. It is an extraordinary circumstance and the Prime Minister should take cognizance of the matter.
It was not necessary to appeal to the Prime Minister to take cognizance of a matter passing in the Customs Department. Any charges made or insinuations thrown out the minister of the department is quite competent and willing to deal with.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) was not in his place. That was the reason I appealed to the Prime Minister.


William Paterson: It was not necessary to appeal to the Prime Minister. The matter came to my notice the next morning in a paragraph in the newspaper. I was
asked if I had seen the very extraordinary charge made-very unjust.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I rise to a point of order. When an hon. member rises to a question of privilege, is he not confined to a personal explanation? I do not think he has the right to use a question of privilege to make an attack on another member of the House. I want an opportunity to reply, to justify what I have said.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) has sat long enough in this House to know the custom of the House in relation ito questions of privilege I assume that he will observe the Tules of the House.


William Paterson: Certainly. As I explained, had it not been that it was necessary for me to refer to a past debate, I should have waited for the motion that is soon to be presented to the House. Then he reads another letter. Then we have a letter from Mr. Farrow. The commissioner wrote that the only way to have a waluation of the boat made would be for one of our special officers, appointed as an appraiser, whose duty it is to make valuations in all parts of the west of machinery to go there and make an examination. I have to ask my hon. friend a question. He says the boat was valued at $1,600, by our Dominion appraiser Mr. Boughney. I have here a communication from the collector of customs at Brockville, whose duty it would have been in the absence of the special appraiser to make this appraisement. The collector at Brockville says that he was aware of the valuation, that he approved of it, and that the boat was not worth any more. The hon. member says:
The valuation is interesting. I am informed that the boilers and engine alone for scrap iron would be worth several thousand dollars. It is a most expensive yacht, and it is valued on the suggestion of Mr. Calvert at the low sum of $1,600. Mr. Calvert suggested $1,000 or so,

And that is not an ingenuous statement.
-and the Customs Department being in an accommodating mood split the difference and made it $1,600. That matter should be taken cognizance of by the leader of the government. Mr. Calvert had been the instrument in securing the passing of the Farmers' Bank certificate; he was the instrument in having the yacht 'Wanda' passed the customs at on&-twentieth of its true value. Why did not Mr. Travers deal direct with the Customs Department instead of using the Liberal whip to secure the valuation of a boat worth thousands and thousands of dollars at $1,600. The Customs Department through the influence of the Liberal whip was defrauded out of hundreds of dollars in duty.

One of my deputies has sent me the following extract, within the last two or three minutes:
The former Literal Whip, Mr. W. S. Calvert, now a member of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, had introduced Mr. Travers to the Minister of Finance. He had also used his influence with Hon. Wm. Paterson, Minister of Customs, to have Mr. Travers' yacht 'Wanda' passed through the customs at the low valuation of $1,600.
I need scarcely say that I knew nothing of the transaction whatever as my officer writes me. He says:
Hear Mr. Paterson,-I wish to call your attention to above quoted extract from the 'Mail and Empire' of Friday last re Travers' yacht.
Yours respectfully,



R. R. FARROW.

[Stage Direction]
I find from reference to correspondence that you were not in Ottawa until the 26th August 1909, upon which date you returned to the city. Departmental letters re yacht are dated 24th August, 1909.
Of course I have not to deal with this comment from a newspaper. This paper has often in the past and will probably in the future make comments which woulA not be called complimentary to me, and which in this case are absolutely unjust, but I have to do with an hon. member of this House making charges so serious as this which involves the reputation, and as you can see, absolutely the position of an officer of the Department of Customs. _ The hon. member says he does that on _ information. The officer cannot question a member of parliament whose statement is privileged, but I have a Tight to ask, and I do ask on behalf of my officer that that hon. gentleman be just enough to these men to give me the name of his informant. Then we will trace it out. It needs no royal commission, it will be attended to, but I ask him and I think the House will agree with me that in justice to these men if not to myself he should give the name of this informant who can be talked to outside of the House.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Would the minister give us the particulars of the yacht, her size, dimensions and engines?


Mr. MADDIN.: If the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) gives _ the name of his informant will the minister deal with him as diligently and expeditiously as he did with those officers of the Customs Department in Cape Breton who broke the regulations of the Customs Department by taking part in municipal elections and which I have brought to his attention time and time again?


William Paterson: In reply to the leader of the opposition this memorandum is handed to me signed by John McDougald, Mr. PATERSON.
commissioner of customs and R. R. Farrow, assistant commissioner. An insinuation was made because Mr. McDougald was addressed by Mr. Calvert and the letter was written by Mr. Farrow. I am informed that Mr. McDougald had gone on his holidays and in the regular course of correspondence the letter came to Mr. Farrow and he answered it. The memorandum which has been handed to me reads:
This appraisement was made by J. C. Boughner in the usual course.
Mr. Boughner is a Dominion appraiser appointed under the Customs Act especially for appraisement of machinery, for which purpose he visits from time to time ports in eastern Canada where there are no regular appraisers.
There is no appraiser at Brockville. The collector acts there as appraising officer in the absence of a regular appraiser.
In this instance, Mr. Boughner conferred with the collector in making the appraisement. The collector states that he considers the appraisement of $1,600 a proper valuation, and that the vessel is not worth any more.
Mr. Boughner received no instructions whatever, directly or indirectly, from the officers of the Customs Department as to making a low appraisement.	_
There was no invoice, and the valuation was left to the appraiser's judgment. He maintains that his appraisement was fair and reasonable.
The yacht is 25 tons gross register, 17 tons net register; built of wood in 1892; with steam engines of 13 horse power. At the time of appraisement in 1909 the hull and engines were 17 years old; boilers 14 years old.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Any person who listened to my remarks the other night would know I was not reflecting at all upon the personal integrity_of the Minister of Customs. Every one who has the acquaintance of the Minister of Customs knows perfectly well that he would not be a party to this, but I do reflect upon, his department, and until there is an investigation granted, that reflection stands. My information, and I have it from a good source, which I am willing to disclose at a proper investigation


William Paterson: No, but I want it now.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: And if the minister will grant a royal commission to investigate this I will disclose the names and circumstances connected with the whole discreditable transaction. In my opinion the whole affair shows a most improper and discreditable state of affairs in the Department of Customs, and I am willing to stand by what I said, and to give the information in detail if a royal commission is granted.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to observe that my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) does not impute any wrong action to the

minister, who3e perfect integrity he acknowledges. He says that if anything wrong has been done it has been on the part of the officers of the department, Mr. Mc-Dougald to whom Mr. Calvert's communication was addressed, or Mr. Farrow. All the members who were in the House years ago, and hon. gentlemen who have been in the House for some time know that while the government is blessed with a very good civil service the government has no better officers than Mr. McDougald and Mr. Farrow and that their integrity is absolutely above reproach.


William Paterson: The position of the appraiser is at stake on this point. He has taken an oath to do his duty. He is charged with having placed a valuation upon a boat which is one-twentieth its value. The hon. gentleman says that he has information to that effect. I say that this officer has the right, through me, to say to the hon. gentleman who makes this statement that he must give the name of the informant, and give it now if he wishes to be fair.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In reply to the Minister of Customs, I know of no authority which says that I must give it now, and I shall refuse to give it now. I will give it at any proper session of a royal commission that may be appointed to investigate this whole transaction.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

James William Maddin: I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) how soon I may expect an answer to an order for a return passed by this House a month ago in regard to the appointment of fish wardens in Victoria county in 1906-7 and in1 1909-10. Also, I would like to learn when I may expect the return of the amount of fish bounties paid in the south riding of Cape Breton that I inquired about at the same time.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I do not remember exactly the returns for which my hon. friend is asking. I was under the impression that they had been brought down. I will take a note of them, and I will give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.


James William Maddin: I might say to the minister that the whole work in connection with the Victoria county return would not take two hours of any clerk's time, and it is now a month since the order passed this House. I hope the minister will realize that it may greatly facilitate the passage of his estimates to have questions of this kind answered promptly.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when we will be able to get the return to the order of the House in reference
to United States cruisers on Great Lakes. That was asked for about a year and a half ago.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will make inquiry.


Glenlyon Campbell: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine.and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) when we may expect the report of the North West Fishing Commission.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I expect it to be brought down to-morrow. I made inquiries this morning about the printing of it, and I was told that the printing was so far advanced that we may be able to get it tomorrow. As soon- as we get it I will be very glad to lay it on the table.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 93) to incorporate the Alberta Electric Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. GRAHAM.: I have been informed that the promoter of the Bill has agreed that the clause relating to the company doing business in coal shall be stricken out. Am I correct in that?


Mr. HERRON.: On behalf of the promoters of the Bill I am authorized to say that they are prepared to have clause 14 as it now stands in the Bill removed.
Clause 14 dropped.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to ask the Minister of Railway and Canals, if the department has any policy with reference to these coal clauses in railway charters. Is it the disposition of the minister to oppose -coal clauses in railway charters? I think the committee is entitled to an announcement of some principle or policy from the department with reference to that question.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, it is difficult sometimes to lay down a policy which is applicable to all conditions, for the reason that members from various parts of the country where the interests are so diverse always imagine that they make out a special case if they wish any special clause inserted. I believe that the larger railway companies have the right to deal in coal. Up to the present time in Canada it has not had any effect in so far as I know, but, as I have pointed out in the committee, as our coal mines are taken up we might very well find ourselves in the position of the United States where they have a combination of coal mining and transportation companies which might be a menace, and which might have to be removed. On principle, I may say, unless a strong case is made out or there is some special reason,

I think it is better not to have the tw< combined.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



LA BANQUE DU CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the House to go into committee on Bill (No. 123) to incorporate La Banque du Canada.-Mr. Bickerdike.
William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest that the Bill stand over. The hon. gentleman who is in charge of the Bill is not here at the present time, and there may be some discussion about it.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 133) to incorporate the Alberta-Saskatchewan Life Insurance Company.- Mr. Rutan.
Bill (No. 108) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Air. McCraney.
Bill (No. 1341 to incorporate the Canadian Inter-Mountain Railway Company.-Mr. Goodeve.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 139) for the relief of George Addison Brown.-Mr. Thornton.

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

Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	How many cubic yards of material has the Maritime Dredging and Construction Company removed under their Beacon Bar contract in St. John harbour, and at what cost?
2.	What quantity has been removed since March 31, 1910, to the present time and at what cost?
3.	How many square feet of area under this contract has been dredged to a depth of 32 feet, L.W.S.T.?
4.	How long at present rate of progress will it take to finish contract?
5.	Is it the intention of the department to require employment of more dredges of capacity of ' Cynthia,' or greater, to hasten completion of this work?
G.	Is the dredging work being done at outer berth in Rodney Slip done as part of Beacon Bar contract, and at same prices?
7.	If not done as part of Beacon Bar contract and at the prices of that contract, at what prices is the work being done?
8.	Were tenders called for the dredging at Rodney Slip? If not, why not?
9.	How many cubic yards of material has been removed from this locality, Rodney Slip, and how many more have to be removed to complete the work?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	1,573,604 cubic yards; cost, $621,585.69 to date.


Mr. GRAHAM.: 2.	979,263 cubic yards; cost, $386,819.84.
3.	240,000 square feet.
4.	This will depend upon the rapidity with which it is decided to proceed with the work, and the amount of the appropriation which may be granted by parliament. This must necessarily depend also upon the completion of negotiations now pending between the city of St. John and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for an exchange of lands where the improvements are being carried on. An unexpected and regrettable disagreement has arisen between the city and the company which may retard the progress of the work.
5.	Not at present.
6.	Yes.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	Not for this special work, it being considered that it could properly be done at the price mentioned in the existing contract with the Maritime Dredging and Construction Company for dredging on the western side of the harbour.
9.	(a) 27,785 cubic yards removed, (b) 67,980 cubic yards to complete.


INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ALCOHOLISM.
Mr. AMES:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to send, or assist in sending, delegates to represent the Dominion of Canada at the International Congress on Alcoholism, to be held in London this summer?
2.	If so, how are representatives to this congress to be named?


Mr. KING:: I and 2. No.


PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE BANK ACT.
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	On the Synoptical report, dated March 21, 1905, from the curator of the Yarmouth Bank, what action was taken by the government and with what results?
2.	What are the names of the directors of the bank, the parties prosecuted, the charges, the penalties and punishments in each case?
3.	What action was taken and what prosecutions were made, if any, in the case of the Banque St. Jean, the Banque St. Hyacinthe and the St. Stephen Bank?


Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	Following the synoptical report of March 21, 1905, the Department of Justice instructed counsel to institute proceedings against the cashier, who was found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of sixty days.
2.	John Lovitt, president; S. A. Crowell, vice-president; Augustus Cann, N. B. Cann and J. Leslie Lovitt. In addition to the case against the cashier criminal proceedings were instituted on the information of a shareholder against the president and

vice-president for the making of false returns. A conviction was obtained against the president, which was set aside by the Supreme Court (en banc) of Nova Scotia. As a result of the proceedings, in the case of the president, the attorney general of the province discontinued proceedings against the vice-president.
3.	In the case of the Banque St. Jean, prosecutions were entered into against P.
H.	Roy, president; P. I. L'Heureux, and P. Beaudoin, for the making of false returns. The president was found guilty and sentenced to five years imprisonment. On the report of Colonel F. W. Hibbard, K.C., who represented the Department of Justice; the cases against Messrs. Beaudoin and L'Heureux were dropped. In the cases of the Banque St. Hyacinthe and the
St. Stephens Bank no criminal prosecutions were entered, there being no allegation of criminality in these instances.


IMPORTS BY PROVINCES.
Mr. RUTAN:: What have been the total amounts of dutiable imports (consumption), by provinces, from the United States into Canada for the years 1908, 1909, 1910, respectively, of wheat, barley, flax, oats, beef eggs, butter, sheep, swine, potatoes and fruit?


William Paterson: The importations for consumption of the undermentioned articles from the United States into Canada, by provinces, during the fiscal years 1908, 1909 and 1910, were as follows:
Articles.	Provinces.	1908.	1909.	1910.	Quantity.	Value.	Quantity.	Value.	Quantity.	Value.Bush.	$	Bush.	$	Bush.	87,865	5,987	269	354	6,462	5,859Quebec	' 17	' 30	49	58	2	' 2Manitoba	265	227	22	34	61	65British Columbia	81,852	69,468	45.838	40,317	48.295	49,088Alberta	86	123	89	88	111	88105	105	41	75	Yukon	65	113	21	25	33	37Total	90,255	76,053	46,329	40,951	54,964	55,139549	492	79,706	46,691	164,202	99,516154	164	' 62	614	6	20	25Manitoba .. .	68	63	43	49	23	21British Columbia	8,029	5,630	7,482	5,162	145	139Alberta	33	24	10,091	7,245	34	4231	16	66	4	10	6	Total	8,843	6,383	97,399	59,184	164,532	99,81046,432	59,500	103	275	1,225	2,976379i 736	466^372	36	53	Manitoba	243	301	185	218	536	1,06111	17	17	38P. E. Island....	85	104	28	36	28	499	16	40	40	
*		
Total	426,516	526,310	392	622	1,806	4,124499	219	123	68	418	151Ontario	3,406	1,625	4,621	2,789	4,768	2,847Quebec	40	20	188	9;	20	4515 000	8,850Manitoba	477	240	362	310	65	68B. Columbia....	32,865	13,932	18,368	7,847	2,163	1,33817	16Saskatchewan...	193	101	129	165	185	113Y ukon	748	412	34,837	18,004	725	405[DOT] 38,231	16 549	58,C28	29,277	23,361	13,833
Articles.
Beef.
-Eggs
Butter
Sheep
Swine
Potatoes
Provinces.	1908.	1909.	1910.	Quantity.	Value.	Quantity.	Value.	Quantity.	Value.Lbs. 8,595 84,400 1,096,420 793,600 14,779 22,600	9 647 4,124 48,931 38,251 897 943	Lbs. 29,643 68,646 678,100 491,770 10,883 21,465	8 2,264 3,840 38.28S 29,478 679 1,093	Lbs. 4,487 11,900 851,351 567,307 10,027 	200	$ 284 565 43,004 31,280 665 	
17
Nova Scotia	 New Brunswick. British Colum bia P. E. Island....						
Total							
2,020,394	93,793	1,300,507	75,042	1,445,272	75,815Doz. 154,583 198,456 3 32 303,959 305,569 4,987 17 129,160	27,509 36,507 1 25 52,818 60,455 1,279 10 32,104	Doz. 73,203 212,710 060	12,359 35,122 165	Doz. 109,740 80,869	24,628 18 645


Nova Scotia ...: New Brunswick. Manitoba	 British Columbia						
						
			184,279 508,547 14,132 98 98,704	39,956 118,728 3,480 65 26,429	120,859 366,364 192 647 71,805	26,978 86,586 294 251 20,195
Saskatchewan...						
Total 							
1,096,766	210,708	1,092,333	236,304	750,476	177,577Lbs. 8,890 16,329 500 509 241,920 31 363 26,105	2,091 3,099 100 132 61,877 7 117 7,251	Lbs. 4S,356 60,211	9,365 10,987	'Lbs. 12,545 160 53 168 33,376	2,610 20 5 36 8,690
Nova Scotia	 Manitoba	 British Columbia						
			1,550 334,570 610	403 92,990 185		
Saskatchewan..						
			28,508	8,289	14,779	4,802
Total							
294,647	74,674	473,805	112,219	61,081	16,163No. 172	1,205	No. 70	1,882	No. 57 2 249 33,176 2,151 209	1,100 30 1,331 121,457 6,174 1,400
5 45,668 5,548 859	20 183,256 15,794 2,917	81 42,567 203 54	339 173,739 509 373		
British Columbia						
						
Total	 Ontario							
52,252	203,192	42,975	176,842	35,844	131,492Lbs. 200 520 4,090 1,782	10 39 251 115	Lbs.	Lbs. 2,700	2,125
British Columbia			60	25	60	15
Total		 Ontario							
6,592	415	60	25	2,760	2,140Bush. 121,060 14,463 2,391 29,104 32,269 16,552 44 326 1,191 25,592	90,199 12,374 1,434 10,129 21,670 15,274 49 338 779 39,050	Bush. 64,257 10,753 209 48 11,540 18,313 13 1,393 718 19,038	69,728 12,462 260 67 11,544 11,193 17 1,089 688 21,919	Bush. 96,991 18,548 946 193 17,754 57,091 2 8,0-47 389 15,267	81,027 18,061 922 245 13,391 43,390 3 4,981 205 17,624Quebec	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick. Manitoba ... British Columbia P. E. Island.... A lberta	
Saskatchewan...	Total	242,992	191,296	126,282	128,967	215,228	179,849


William Paterson: Articles.
Provinces.
1908.
Quantity. Value.
1909.
Quantity. Value.
1910.
Quantity * Value.
reen fruit
Ontario	
Quebec


Nova Scotia ...: New Brunswick.
Manitoba	
British Columbia
P. E. Island___
Alberta	
Saskatchewan... Yukon	
Total	
261,565
190,088
27,542
27,710
232,211
166,561
4,531
108,679
16,634
14,473
182,508
182,124
33,780
28,742
218,473
222,560
2,839
125,547
42,729
12,534
173,737
155,233
30.587 37,365
268,514
307,534
1,807
146,016
74,207
10.588
1,049,848
1,051,836
1,205,588


MASTERS' CERTIFICATES.
Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe):: 1.	On what dates did Captains N. L. Morrison, H. A. Pocock and H. J. Stevens secure masters' certificates on the inland lakes?
2.	Were these gentlemen Canadian citizens oi British subjects?
8. When and where did they serve the time required by law as mates before being granted their masters' certificates?
4.	When did Captain H. J. Stevens serve the necessary time as mate on a passenger steamer to acquire a master's certificate on a passenger steamer?
5.	Who was the examiner in each case, and what were the fees?
6.	Have the said fees been turned over to the department.


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	N. L. Morrison, Windsor, February 18, 1908. H. A. Pocock, St. Catharines, March 4, 1905, H. J. Stevens, Windsor, December 7, 1907.
2.	H. J. Stevens, British subject naturalization paper, April 11, 1908; H. A. Pocock, British subject sworn declaration dated.1 March 6, 1905; N. L. Morrison, British subject (born).
3.	N. L. Mprrison: Canadian ss. 'Hiawatha ' ancl American ss. ' I. C. Ford ', April 10, 1898 to December 11, 1900. H. A. Pocock, all American vessels, December 9, 1890 to December 9, 1899. H. J. Stevens, all American vessels, December 18, 1904 to October 21, 1907.
4.	H. J. Stevens, according to records in department, performed the necessary service as mate during seasons of 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1907, averaging seven months each.
5.	N. L. Morrison, H. J. Stevens, H. A. Pocock; Captain McGregor, W. Mcllwain; fee, $15.
6.	Yes.


Mr. BLAIN:: 1.	What amount of money was expended during 1909 and 1910 by the Publio Works Department at Port Credit?
2.	Was the money expended in dredging and improving the harbour?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$1,668.94.
2.	Yes, being cost of maintenance of government dredge ' Sir Richard ' for months of September and October.


CANADA-JAPAN TRADE TREATY.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: Has the trade treaty between Canada and Japan expired? If so, what action has the government taken in regard to same?


William Stevens Fielding: The treaty has not expired, but will terminate on the 17th July, 1911. The question of a new treaty is under consideration.


THE CANADIAN NAVY.
Mr. MONK:: What is the total amount spent since the 31st October, 1910, up to date, out of the sum voted by the House in connection with the new navy?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Mr. MONK:: 1.	What is the full complement of the 'Niohe' and 'Rainbow,' respectively, when in active service?
2.	What is the cost per diem of each of the above-named ships, including necessary supplies and men?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	The ' Niobe ', 705; the ' Rainbow ', 273.
2.	Estimated approximate cost per day: ' Niohe ', $1,726; ' Rainbow ', $809.


Mr. MONK:: 1.	What is the amount paid per ton for coal for the ss. ' Rainbow' by the department?
2.	What amount of coal per day is required for the 'Rainbow' when at sea?
3.	What amount is required for the ' Rainbow,5 when in port, for its dynamos, motors, heating, &c. ?
4.	What is the cost per ton for coal to supply the 5 Niobe 5 on the Atlantic coast?
5.	From whom does the department purchase coal for the two above-mentioned ships, respectively ?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	$4.50 per ton, f. o. b., Comox.
2.	Average amount at ordinary cruising speed is about 45 tons.
3.	The average amount for December (the latest information available) was three and a half tons.
4.	$4.10 per ton. Alongside. Halifax.
5.	' Rainbow ', Hall, Walker & Co., Victoria, B. C.; ' Niobe ', Dominion Coal Company, Ltd., Montreal.


GREAT NORTHWESTERN TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	Has the request of the Great Northwestern Telegraph operators for a board of conciliation been received by the government?
2.	Has said request been granted? If not, why not ?


Mr. KING:: 1.	An application on behalf of the telegraph operators of the company named has been received.
2.	This application is under consideration at the present time.


NETHERLANDS LOAN AND LAND COMPANY.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has there been, subsequent to the adoption of the resolution by this House of the 6th of February, any further correspondence between any department of the government and 1 Preston, or between the government and any other persons, on matters connected with the Netherlands Mortgage or Loan Company, and will the government issue instructions that the papers referred to, if any, shall form part of the return asked for in the said resolution of the 6th February?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the government received from the trade agent in Holland a report about the failure recently of a proposed Canadian Land Company to get its capital subscribed when placed on the Netherlands Stock Exchange, as reported in the ' Monetary Times5 on the 4th of February? If not, will the department ask Mr. Preston for a report at an early Mr. BRODEUR.
date, and will the report when received be published in the usual way for the information of the public?


Wilfrid Laurier: YTes, it is not considered necessary to seek additional information.


ADULTERATION OF MAPLE SYRUP.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it the intention of the government to amend the Adulteration of Foods Act, or introduce a new Bill during the present session to prevent the adulteration of maple syrup, as suggested by the maple sugar and syrup iudustry of Canada?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


MOTION AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all orders in council, contracts, reports, declarations, profiles, plans, correspondence and other documents and papers touching the claims of McDonald and McLellan, or of Ronald R. McDonald, for construction of the Intercolonial railway, from about the eighteenth mile east of Grand Narrows to the twenty-second mile east of Grand Narrows aforesaid-Mr. Borden (Halifax).

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that, whereas by legislation enacted at the session thereof held in the year A.D. 1910, the legislature of the province of New Brunswick authorized and empowered the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the said province to guarantee the principal and interest of the bonds of any railway company which would build a line of railway from a point on the line of the National Transcontinental railway at Grand Falls, in the county of Victoria, to the city of St. John, in the said province of New Brunswick, a distance of about two hundred and twenty miles, to the extent of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per mile upon certain conditions therein set forth, one of such conditions being that no such agreement should be entered into with any company or corporation for the construction of the said line of railway or for the guaranteeing of the said bonds unless and until the parliament of Canada should enact legislation authorizing the entering by the government of Canada into an agreement with such company or with the government of the province of New Brunswick, for the leasing of the said line of railway when completed, with its appurtenances and rolling stock, and for the operation, maintenance, upkeep and repair by the said government of Canada, as a part of the government railway system of Canada, for a period of ninety-nine years, and for the payment by the government of Canada to the said province of New Brunswick, or the government thereof, each year during the said term of ninety-nine years of forty per centum per annum of the gross earnings of the said railway, as or in the nature of rental therefor; the amount of such

rental to be applied in payment of the interest of the bonds so to be guaranteed and the surplus, if any, to be paid to the said company.
Now, therefore, it is expedient that His Excellency the Governor in Council be authorized to enter into a contract with any such railroad company and the government of the province of New Brunswick as aforesaid, for the leasing of the said line of railway with its appurtenances and rolling stock, when completed and equipped with rolling stock, and for the operation, maintenance, upkeep and repair by the said government of Canada, as a part of the government railway system of Canada, for a period of ninety-nine years, and for the payment by the government of Canada to the said province of New Brunswick, or the said company, each year during the said term of ninety-nine years, of the forty per centum per annum of the gross earnings of the said railway, as or in the nature of rental therefor;
Provided, however, that the said contract shall be entered into only upon the condition that the said railway be constructed upon plans and specifications to be approved of by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and shall be up to the general standard of the said National Transcontinental railway through the said province;
Provided further, that His Excellency the Governor in Council shall be authorized to enter into a contract as aforesaid for the operation of the said road in sections, when completed and equipped as follows:
1.	Prom Predericton to Woodstock.
2.	Prom Fredericton south a distance of fifty miles.
3.	Each twenty-five miles thereafter, until the line be completed and equipped from Grand Falls to St. John.-Mr. Graham.
George Perry Graham: This resolution refers to a proposed line of railway 207 miles long running from the city of St. John to Grand Falls. I may say that one of the first deputations that I listened to after becoming a member of the government was a large deputation from this part of the Dominion urging that steps be taken to secure the construction of a line of railway through the rich St. John valley. If I remember correctly, what was promised at that date was the granting of the usual subsidy, which I think was done at the following session of parliament. Although this is one of the oldest sections of the Dominion, and said to be one of the richest, it seems to have had difficulty in getting railway facilities. Several attempts have been made, but they have not hitherto been brought to a successful conclusion. So urgent is the necessity for this line, and so much has its need impressed the minds of legislators, both in the Dominion and in the province, that they are desirous of arriving at an agreement to provide the long sought for accommodation. The provincial government has passed an Act,, which is referred to in the resolution, providing to grant a guarantee of the bonds to the extent of $25,000 a mile for the construction of the road if the Dominion government will undertake its operation. That seemed to be a fairly equal distribution of labour. This resolution is to provide that the Railway Department may have power to enter into negotiations for the operations of this railway on its completion under the terms outlined in the provincial legislation. I understand that a company has already offered to undertake the construction , of this line on the terms indicated in the provincial legislation and outlined in this resolution. If the committee will allow me, I have some details, which I propose to give. The line will extend from St. John to Grand Falls to connect with the National Transcontinental a distance of about 207 miles. It will follow the River St. John to Fredericton a distance of 74 miles, and thence go to Woodstock a distance of 62 miles. From that point to a short distance below Andover it leaves the river, going between that and the International boundary line, a distance of 45 miles. Then it is proposed to cross the river going on the eastern side from Andover to Grand Falls, a distance of about 25 miles.
I need not point out that in this section there is a lot of agricultural production. It has been noticed in this House on one or two occasions that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) takes great interest in potatoes, an interest accounted for by the fact that the section through which this road is to run, including the constituency he represents, is a great producer of potatoes. Last year along that line, there were something like 150,000 barrels carried out of that territory, and carried under conditions which compelled the farmers to draw them from five to fifteen miles. After better railway facilities are offered, this production no doubt will be doubled and perhaps trebled or quadrupled.
This matter is not new. It has been discussed already on several occasions when the' subsidies were granted. The necessity for the line is acknowledged by everybody, but the question is how to work the line practically. It is proposed that the government should have power to enter into an agreement to operate this line, retaining sixty per cent and handing over forty per cent to the provincial government or the company. It is assumed that a certain standard of road will be required. That standard is outlined in the resolution as the general standard of the National Transcontinental through New Brunswick. That might mean a great deal and it might not mean very much. One part of New Brunswick might be very difficult for railway construction and another very easy. At one point I believe the construction of this line will not be very heavy. I am told that surveys have been made recently, and the

estimate runs from $31,000 per mile to $49,000.


George Eulas Foster: Does that include bridges?


George Perry Graham: Yes. We must lay down some standard, and as this might form part of a through line before many years, it ought to be built to a fairly good standard at least. In the first place we are offering to operate it at sixty per cent of the gross revenue; and in order to keep the cost of operation down to a reasonable point, it is necessary that we should have a fairly good standard of road. I think there will be no difficulty working out that part of the problem. While, owing to physical difficulty, it may be found very expensive to arrive at a very high standard, I think there will be no difficulty in coming to terms for a standard to toe adopted for that particular section. Although there is a grade of four-tenths of one per cent on eastbound and six-tenths of one per cent on westbound trains, it might be necessary to have a grade of one per cent or more than one per cent on some parts of this line. When we say, therefore, the standard of the Transcontinental, it does not mean that we must adhere strictly to a four-tenths of one per cent on the eastbound traffic or six-tenths of one per cent on the westbound, because the physical conditions might make that impracticable if not impossible.
The other point is the initial equipment. It will be necessary to put in the contract something as to initial equipment, but the initial equipment in a road of that kind need not be such an extravagant item. For the first two or three years, the traffic will not be so heavy that it will require an extraordinary amount of Tolling stock, and the company or the government offering to operate it and supplying rolling stock after the initial equipment will come in for -a larger share of expense as the years go by. But the initial equipment-I do not wish to be held to these figures-roughly speaking, will cost probably a quarter of a million dollars. This amount will probably supply all that will be necessary for this line during the first year or two.
There is another point in this connection. There is a road now recently constructed through a territory that ought to produce good traffic. I refer to the Intemtaional railway, which runs from St. John to St. Leonards on the St. John river, twelve miles from Grand Falls. This International line now being completed running from the Intercolonial at Campbellton, will be within twelve miles of the St. John Valley road when completed. It might be assumed that running rights could be secured over this line from the Grand Trunk Pacific for that twelve- miles.	The question
is being considered also of the International railway being operated as Mr. GRAHAM
a . government railway. I am not sure that that will be done; but if it should be, the government railway would have a line from Campbellton through to St. John in addition to the other. The government railway would then have one loop line all around New Brunswick. I am not sure if our New Brunswick friends would consider that as a good thing, but it would be a good thing for the government railways. These are the main features. I am not proposing this as a great money maker, but rather as a means of providing the people of St. John valley with the railway communication for which they have been asking for so many years.


Mr. CROCKET.: It must be apparent to any one familiar with the facts in connection with these proposals that the adoption of this resolution in the terms here stated will simply amount to a refusal on the part of this government to cooperate with the government of New Brunswick in the effort it is making to provide the people of St. John valley with this much-needed railway. To any one who is not aware of what has occurred, it might be otherwise. A brief recital of the facts, however, will expose the real meaning of this resolution.	_
I need not refer to the great public necessity which exists for and demands the immediate construction of this railway, because that is admitted by the First Minister, the Minister of Railways, the Minister of Public Works and by the unanimous vote of the legislature of New Brunswick. It is sufficient for this discussion to mention the recent agitation which has stirred the people of the St. John River valley from the county of Madawaska to the city of St. John. That agitation broke out spontaneously so soon as it was learned that this government had committed the crime-if I may toe permitted to quote the language used by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) in this connection-of ignoring the claims of St. John valley in connection with the location of the National Transcontinental in New Brunswick, and carrying 'that railway across the province from Grand Falls to Moncton through a wilderness and unsettled country, which the officers of this government in official reports have described as unsuited for agricultural development.	.
That agitation culminated in a large and influential delegation, representing every settlement, town, village and city in the St. John valley, waiting upon the government of the province of New Brunswick in the spring of 1909, and seeking its assis-'arce for the building of a Tailway for the people of the St. John river. That delegation asked the New Brunswick government to undertake to promote legislation

to guarantee bonds to the extent of $25,000 a mile for the construction of this line of railway. It was suggested that, if the government would give its undertaking in that behalf, the Dominion government could be induced to agree to take the road over on completion and operate it as part of the Intercolonial railway system upon the basis of the Dominion government paying forty per cent of the gross earnings as rental of the railway. The premier of the province of New Brunswick, Hon. Mr. Hazen, at once assured the delegation that he and his government were prepared to engage to promote legislation along these lines, and would do so, if the consent of this government could be procured to taking over and operating the road under a long lease upon the terms stated. A delegation shortly afterwards came to Ottawa, I think, on the 16th of April, 1909, and waited upon a committee of the Executive Council, composed of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid
I.	curier), the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) .and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). I had the privilege of being present at the hearing of the delegation. I beard the case as it was presented to that subcommittee of the Council, and I heard the Prime Minister's reply. I may say that the principal spokesman on behalf of the application was Mr. J.	H. Barry, K.C., now Mr Justice Barry, of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick. There were other speakers, including Hon. Mr. Fleming, Provincial Secretary of New Brunswick, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and Mr. Foster, president of the Board of Trade of St. John. Others also urged the government to the acceptance of the proposition. The Prime Minister, in replying to that delegation, stated that the government were very much interested in this matter, that they had heard, before the delegation proceeded to Ottawa, of what had taken place in the province of New Brunswick, had considered it to some extent, and had appointed the committee I have already named, for the purpose of receiving the delegation and hearing their representations. He stated that the proposition was a definite proposition which the government would have to consider. He stated, with regard to the subcommittee, that they had themselves, talked the matter over, and intimated that all three, himself, the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Public Works,, .were favourable to the acceptance of the proposition, but that it would be necessary for them to submit the matter to Council. Mt. Barry, in presenting the case, urged upon the government the necessity of a very early reply, setting forth as a reason the fact that the New Brunswick legislature was then nearing prorogation, and if
legislation were to be passed at the session it would he necessary to have the reply at a very early date, within a day or two. In fact it was suggested that the delegation should return with the reply that day. The Prime Minister spoke in very favourable terms, and, while he stated that it was impossible to give a Teply that day, he intimated that a reply would be given within a few days, and went so faT as to suggest that if the delegation could wait over a few days, the reply of the government would be forthcoming. Every member of that delegation returned to the province of New Brunswick, feeling asssured that the decision of the government would he favourable. The people of the province waited patiently for several weeks without any intimation being received from the Dominion government. Not until the 28th of April was a word of any kind received. On that day an intimation came from the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell); the government seems to have chosen that extraordinary medium to communicate with the provincial government with respect to a definite proposition that the provincial government had submitted to them.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Would the hon. gentleman pardon me? My recollection is that the provincial government never, except through the delegation, communicated with
the Dominion government.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The proposition submitted was the proposition of the provincial government, submitted by the delegation of which I have spoken, one of whose members was the provincial secretary.


William Pugsley: I believe I am right in saying that the Dominion government never had a communication directly from the provincial government on this subject.


Mr. CARVELL.: And perhaps, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) would allow me to correct him before he reads the telegram, by saying that that was sent by me not to the provincial government-I never wrote or telegraphed to them in my life-but to J. J. F. Winslow, secretary of the St. John Valley Railway Company, and in reply to a telegram from him.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) states that there was no communication between the provincial government and the federal government on this subject. The provincial government's proposition was submitted by the delegation to which I have referred, and in the way in which I have stated.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman will pardon me again-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: I rise to correct my hon. friend. He says that I stated that no communication passed between the federal government and the provincial government. What I said was that the provincial government had not communicated any proposition to the federal government.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understood what the Minister of Public Works stated. I have said two or three times that this proposition was the proposition of the provincial government and was communicated to the federal government through the medium of this	delegation,	one of	whosemembers	was the	provincial	secretary, Mr. Fleming. However, this government did not do the provincial government, or the St. John Valley Railway Company, or the delegation, the courtesy to communicate with them in any way from the 16th of April-notwithstanding the statement made by the Prime Minister -until the 28th of April, when the following telegram was received by Mr. Winslow, secretary of the St. John Valley Railway Company, from the hon. member for Car-leton (Mr. Carvell).
Before the Dominion government can give a positive answer, they require information as to details of proposition. They suggest the local government pass legislation authorizing uruarun 1 eo, subject to condition that Dominion government make satisfactory agreement to operate.
Now, the committee will observe the suggestion of the hon. member for Carleton -and I suppose, the suggestion of the Dominion government-communicated to the provincial government in this extraordinary way, through the medium of a private member of the House, a bitter opponent of the provincial government, was that this government required further details. Now, I happened to be present, not only at the hearing of the delegation i,o which I have referred, but at the meeting of the delegation in the Russell House before the case was presented to the committee of Council. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) was present. The mode of procedure was fully discussed by the delegation. The advice of the hon. member for Carleton and of others was asked; and the case was presented precisely as had been advised by the hon. member and others, the hon. member for Carleton himself joining in the presentation of the case.
Notwithstanding the statement of the Prime Minister that this committee was aware before the delegation came here of what had taken place, and had appointed a committee to receive the representations of that delegation, I did not hear the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Railways, or the Prime Minister, ask any member of that delegation one single ques-Mr. PUGSLEY.
tion with respect to standard of construction or anything of that nature. All information was vouchsafed to the committee of council that was asked for by the members of the government at that time, and it was not until April 28, several days after this delegation had been here that information was conveyed to those interested in the construction of this railway, that any further details were required. The legislature at that time had arranged for prorogation on the following day, and the suggestion that the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick should pass legislation before any intimation of any kind was received from the Dominion government as to whether they would entertain this proposition at all, being so crude and thoroughly unreasonable, was, of course, not acted upon. The matter then stood in abeyance six or seven weeks. No further communication was received by the provincial government or the St. John Valley Railway company from this government.


William Pugsley: Does my. hon. friend remember the date of the prorogation of the provincial legislature of that year?


Oswald Smith Crocket: The legislature prorogued the day after the message was received, April 29. Then, on June 9, Premier Hazen addressed a letter to the president of the St. John Valley Railway Company, who had acted as chairman of the delegation, asking if he had received any word from the premier or any member of the government in regard to the matter, and intimating the desire to know at as early a date as possible if the Dominion government was willing to accept the proposals made by the delegation. Referring to the request submitted through a private member, Mr. Hazen stated that his government concluding, in the light of this communication, that a conference was desirable, had appointed a committee to take the matter up with a committee of the St. John Valley Railway 'Company and of the Dominion government, at such time as might be mutually convenient. The president of the St. John Valley Railway Company thereupon wrote the Minister of Public Works, and - the latter replied on June 19. With the minister's usual politeness, he expressed his exceeding regret that this invaluable suggestion of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) had not been acted upon, and as to the New Brunswick Premier's intimation that a committee of the executive council


William Pugsley: How would it do to read the letter? '


Oswald Smith Crocket: I shall do so. It contains many choice and characteristic passages which the minister and his friends will recognize. It reads:

Oiiice of the Minister of Public Works, Canada,
Ottawa, June 19, 1909.
Dear Mr. Winslow,-
Re St. John Valley Railway.
I am in receipt of your favour of the 15th inst. inclosing copy of letter from Mr. Hazen to the mayor of Fredericton, dated 9th inst.
You ask if it is possible for me to inform you if the government of Canada ' is willing to accept the proposition made by Mr. Hazen, as Premier of the province, to the effect that the New Brunswick government would guarantee the bonds of the road if the government of Canada would undertake, on its construction, to operate it as part of the government railway of Canada and to pay to the province 40 per cent of the gross earnings/
So far as I understand the matter, no de-nite proposition has yet been made by the provincial government.
Altlhough I myself heard the Prime Minister state in the presence of the Minister of Public Works that was a definite proposition which the government would have to consider.
And I think it is a matter for regret that the suggestion contained in the telegram of Mr. Carvell, M.P., quoted in Mr. Hazen's letter was not acted upon. In that telegram Mr. Carvell stated

And he quotes the telegram which I have just read.
If the requisite legislation had been passed, the provincial government would not have been in a position to submit a definite proposition to the federal government which, from the reception given to the delegates by the Prime Minister would, I think, you will readily believe, have received most sympathetic consideration. By omitting to do this a year's time has been lost.
However, that was not done, and the important question now to consider is how best to facilitate the early commencement of this most important undertaking. As to the holding of a conference with the Dominion government at present, I would point out to you that the Finance Minister is in England and several of the other ministers are also absent, so that there will be no opportunity of having a full meeting of government for some time. The suggestion contained in Mr. Car-veil's telegram not having been acted upon, the matter has not been further considered by the federal cabinet.
As if it were necessary that there should be a full meeting of the Dominion cabinet in order to consider the standard of construction of the railway. The Minister of Public Works stated that the Finance Minister and several other members of the cabinet were absent; but the Minister of Railways was here, the Minister of Public Works was here, and other members of the cabinet. The Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways, had they been so disposed, could, either of them, surely, have conferred with a sub-committee of the New Brunswick government with reference to the 1781
standard of construction of this railway. The suggestion that there should he a full meeting of the cabinet in order to consider a matter of this kind seems to me utterly
absurd. The minister continues:
Being sincerely desirous of assisting the construction of the railway by every means in my power, I venture to make a personal suggestion for the consideration of your company and that of the provincial government. It is this-that the government make a definite proposition engaging to obtain legislation authorizing the guaranteeing of bonds for such amount as will be necessary to ensure the construction and equipment, of the railway from Grand Falls to St. John on condition that the Dominion government shall agree to operate it as part of the government railway system on a long lease, and to pay to the province 40 per cent of the gross earnings.
The proposition, of course, should contain a description of the character of the road to be built. For instance, as to the grade, which should not exceed four-tenths of 1 per cent; as to the bridges, which should he of steel; the culverts, of masonry; the rails to be at least 80 pounds per yard; and generally, as to the road being up to the standard of a first class trunk line.
You will readily understand that the railway must he built to a high standard with the most favourable grades obtainable, so as to reduce the operating expenses as much as possible, in order to warrant the government asking the approval of parliament of the operation of the road for 60 per cent of the gross earnings in view of the fact that it takes, upon ,an average, all of the earnings of the Intercolonial to pay the operating expenses.
Of course, if the operating lease were made, the Intercolonial would have to engage to keep the roadbed and rolling stock in proper repair and to make necessary renewals from time to time.
I think you will agree with me that the quickest and best wav to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the question is for the provincial government to make a definite proposition along these lines. Then the responsibility will be upon the federal government of either accepting or rejecting it. or if it is thought advisable, suggesting modifications in the proposal.
Again assuring you of my earnest desire to co-operate in every way possible to secure the early construction of the long talked of St. John Valley railway,
I am, yours very trnlv.
(Sgd.) WILLIAM PTTGSLFY.


William Pugsley: What is the matter with the letter?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I will proceed to point out what is the matter with the letter. It sounds very nicely, there is no question about that, and runs very smoothly, but it is also very transparent.


William Pugsley: That is the way we want the Valley railway to run. We want it well built.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The House will observe the requirements which the Minister of Public Works insisted upon for the construction of this railway which he was so anxious to facilitate. He laid down there a specification which he must have known it was simply impossible for any railway contractor or company to comply with with a $25,000 per mile guarantee and the usual federal subsidy of $6,400 per mile. This specification which was suggested by the minister is a higher specification than was ever demanded for the construction of any railway , in Canada except the Transcontinental railway. He actually prescribed for the construction of this railway, which was to be a branch of the Intercolonial railway, a specification equal to that of the Transcontinental railway, insisting on a four-tenths of one per cent grade.


Mr. DANIEL.: Both ways.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Six-tenths running west and four-tenths running east. He insisted that the rails be eighty pounds to the yard. The specification, as I have said, is higher than that for any other railway in this country with the one exception that I have stated. It is a higher grade than the grade of the Canadian Pacific railway between Montreal and St. John. It is a much higher grade than the Intercolonial railway of Canada of which this was to be a branch. Does anybody who knows the Minister of Public Works suppose that he perceived that such a specification as this was necessary for the operation of this railway as a branch of the Intercolonial railway or for the purposes of Transcontinental traffic? Let me answer out of the mouth of the Minister of Public Works himself. The minister was at one time premier and attorney general of the province of New Brunswick. He occupied that position in the month of March, 1907. While the legislature was in session at that time, as a result of the insistent demands which were made by members representing the various districts along the St. John valley, and in anticipation, no doubt, of an early general election, the minister got into very speedy communication with Mr. D. D. Mann of the firm of Mackenzie and Mann and he produced and read with characteristic earnestness and optimism to the legislature of New Brunswick a telegram which he had received from Mr. Mann and which will be found in the debates of the New Brunswick legislature for the session of 1907. This is Mr. Mann's telegram which was read by the Minister of Public Works on that occasion:
Ottawa, Out., March 20, 1907. Hon. Wm. Pugsley, L.L.D.,
Premier of New Brunswick,
.Fredericton, N.B.
Would suggest you take legislative authority to make arrangements guaranteeing our bonds Mr. PUGSLEY.
not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars per mile. Will promise to have matter thoroughly investigated by our engineers and will enter into contract, providing we find route satisfactory from engineer's and traffic standpoint. The contents of this message can be used at your discretion.
(Sgd.) D. D. MANN.
A few days afterwards an Act was passed authorizing, the Governor in Council to guarantee payment of principal and interest of first mortgage bonds of the Canadian Northern railway or such one^ of the companies controlled by Mackenzie and Mann, Limited, and forming or intended to form part of their transcontinental system, as may be authorized to construct and operate a line of Tailway from Woodstock or from Woodstock to Centreville and down the valley of the St. John to a point at or near Westfield to the extent of $15,000. That railway was intended to be operated as part of the Transcontinental Railway system, and yet by the terms of the Act drafted by the minister himself the only specification laid down was that of a first-class line of railway to be ironed with rails weighing not less than 67 pounds to the yard with bridges of steel and superstructures of stone and concrete. That provision is found in section 16 of the Act. Sixty-seven pound rails with no specification as to gradients or curves was considered sufficient toy the Minister of Public Works as the specification of a Transcontinental railway in 1907, but a specification of four-tenths of one per cent was requisite in the minister's mind in 1910 for a railway which was to be operated as a branch of the Intercolonial railway. Why, Mr. Chairman, did the minister conceive and insist upon such a specification as that in connection [DOT]with the St. John Valley railway? I cannot help but. think that the minister concluded that such a specification would render impossible the construction of that line of railway upon the terms proposed by the New Brunswick government, and that he would thus block the government of New Brunswick in the efforts which they were making to bring about the construction of that railway. The cost of such a railway as that specified by the minister and later by the government was so great that no company could possibly build it with a guarantee of $25,000 a mile plus the usual federal subsidy of $6,400 per mile. Did the minister know that? I think the minister was possessed of that information at the time. It was certainly available to him on the records of this House. In the * Hansard ' of 1907-8, page 12,664, will be found a statement made by the Minister of Railways and Canals of the cost of the Transcontinental railway through the province of New Brunswick. The statement which the minister then made is as follows:

Estimated
Location.	Miles	cost
let. per mile.
Moncton to near Chipman..	50.00	$ 41,995At Chipman	
8.55	83,570Ghipman to Intercolonial railway crossing	
39.05	32,573
Intercolonial railway crossing
to mile 164	
60.40	45,341Mile 164 to Grand Falls..	..	31.80	110,172Grand Falls to New Brunswick boundary	
60.88	51,130


William Pugsley: That $110,000 a mile section includes a tremendous viaduct?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think there was some extraordinary expenditure in connection with a portion of this section. That was the estimated cost as submitted to the House by the Minister of Railways in the session of 1908. There are 256-68 miles from the New Brunswick boundary to Moncton and the average cost per mile estimated by the minister in 1908 was $60,830, while the average estimated cost of the line from Grand Falls to Chipman was $62,695. During the present session I put a question on the Order Paper which was answered by the Minister of Railways on the 22nd February last as to the present estimated cost of these sections. The reply of the minister was as follows:
Tlie present estimated total cost per mile by construction contract divisions is as follows :
Contract No. 1, extending from the city of Moncton westerly for a distance of about 50 miles is estimated to cost $49,190 per mile.
Contract No. 2 from the west end of contract No. 1 to Chipman, a distance of about 8 miles is estimated to cost $89,710 per mile.
Contract No. 3, from Chipman westerly to crossing of the Intercolonial railway, a distance of about 39-7 miles is estimated to cost $35,333 per mile.
Contract No. 4, from the Intercolonial railway crossing westerly to Tobique river, a distance of about 67 miles is estimated to cost $46,920 per mile.
Contract No. 5 from the Tobique river westerly to about 21 miles west of Grand Falls, a distance of about 31 -5 miles is estimated to cost $133,518 per mile.
Contract No. 6, from 2J miles west of Grand Falls to boundary between New Brunswick and Quebec, a distance of about 67 miles is estimated to cost $46,484 per mile.


William Pugsley: Does that prove what a road down the St. John Valley will cost?


Oswald Smith Crocket: We will come to that right away, The average estimated cost under the statement of the Minister of Railways in 1908 of the Transcontinental railway in New Brunswick was $62,695 per mile, while under his statement given on February 22, 1911, the average estimated cost was $71,923 per mile. The Minister of Public Works asks if that will show the cost of a railway down the St. John Valley, and my answer is, not necessarily. But I
want to call th'e attention of the Minister of Public Works to the position this government took with respect to the location of the Transcontinental railway through New Brunswick. One of the reasons assigned for turning down the St. John Valley route and accepting the central or back route so called, was that the construction of a railway down the St. John valley would be very much more expensive than by the route selected by this government. It may be quite true as the Minister of Public Works suggests that the cost of a railway down the St. John valley would not be shown by the cost of a railway across the province of New Brunswick, but if we are to rely upon the official statements of this government the St John Valley route was a more expensive route when built up to the standard of the National Transcontinental railway than the route which was chosen by this government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the object and what is the value of these statements in view of the fact that there is a bona fide offer now to build this road for the bo'nd bearing guarantee and subsidy?


Oswald Smith Crocket: We will discuss the question of the bona tides of that offer which has again brought my hon. friend from Garleton (Mr. CarveJl) into the limelight in a rather unenviable aspect. There is the fact. If the St. John Valley river route is or was a cheaper route than the route selected by the government for the National Transcontinental railway, then this government has been guilty of grossly misleading the people of 'New Brunswick.


William Pugsley: I dislike interrupting my hon. friend, but I have no doubt my hon. friend is in close communication with the government at Fredericton, and I would ask him if he has observed the report of that survey that has been laid on the table of the local House. Has the hon. member got the estimated cost as made up by the provincial engineer?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes.
Mr. PUGSLEY That will be of great value to us.
Mr FOSTER Has the minister not seen it?


William Pugsley: I have seen the newspaper report but not the original.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have here a return brought down by the government in the session of 1906 on a motion of mine for the correspondence and report upon the two proposed routes in the province of New Brunswick. The return states, dealing with the question, of relative cost of the two routes:

The section between Grand Falls and Ed-mundston being common to both routes. On the back route the final location line will be shorter than the preliminary by at least six miles, whereas the location will lengthen the river route say five miles, making the back route some 28 miles shorter than the river route. The' difference in bridgings and minor structures will be very great. The river route crosses the St. John river twice, calling for 3,000 feet of bridge, and as it also crosses all the lateral drainage of the country close to the St. John river, all the minor structures will be larger and more costly than on the back line. The earth work on the back route will be considerably lighter than on the river route. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the difference in cost between the two lines will not be less than $1,500,000.
That is the statement made in the report of Mr. Lumsden to the government with respect to the location of the Transcontinental railway in New Brunswick, and if that report is to be relied upon, the St. John river route was stated by this government to be more expensive than the central route. Yet the specifications which the Minister of Public Works prescribed for the construction of this railway in which he was so sincerely and earnestly interested was a specification equal to that of the National Transcontinental. Aside however, from this comparative statement of the cost of .these alternative routes there is further evidence of knowledge on the part of the Minister of Public Works that the specification which he was prescribing was an impossible specification. In the New Brunswick legislature in 1907 the Minister of Public Works, referred to a telegram which he had received from Mr. Parent chairman of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, stating the cost of the St. John Valley railway as shown by the surveys which had been made by the Transcontinental Commission, and this statement will toe found on page 104 of the debates of the legislature of New Brunswick of that year. He said:
This will not be a cheap route or easy to build, for I have in my hands a telegram from the chairman of the National Transcontinental Commission who states the cost of a railway down the St. John river valley from Woodstock to Ckipman will be $44,500 a mile.
So that the Minister of Public Works had that knowledge at the time he prescribed this specification as to the .survey between these two points.


William Pugsley: That is a long way be-Icw $62,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is the hon. member (Mr. Crocket) aw.are that his own engineer said it would toe only $40,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) need not be impatient; I intend to Mr. CROCKET.
refer to that. If that was a correct estimate Which was referred to by the Minister of Public Works in the New Brunswick legislature, then it was a cheaper line than the route Which was selected for the Transcontinental railway; and if that was so, 'this government grossly deceived the people of the province of New Brunswick when they selected the back route for the reason-the untrue reason-that it was a cheaper route than the St. John Valley route. But, taking the figure which I have just quoted, $44,500 a mile, that is between $13,000 and $14,000 a mile more than the Minister of Public Works knew to be available to any company undertaking the construction of his line under the New Brunswick legislation.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend suggest that the company has not put any of its own money into it, and is to build it entirely with the government guarantee and the Dominion subsidy?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will the Minister of Public Works explain to me how any company which is required to give a first mortgage to the provincial government to secure it with respect to a guarantee of $25,000 a mile is to make up the difference between the amount available from the guarantee and subsidy and the cost of the construction of the railway?


William Pugsley: I will tell my hon. friend
very quickly Under the lease to tiw Intercolonial railway it is agreed that no matter what the operating expenses may he there shall be from year to year 40 per cent of .the gross earnings paid over to the company, and I say you cannot have a better financial basis on which to raise money.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Well, I think that will surprise some of the financiers of the country-that a company, which has no more interest in this proposition than a contract to construct the line and hand it over to the Intercolonial railway for a rental equal to 40 per cent of the gross earnings and to apply that rental to the payment of interest on the government bonds, can find it possible to turn three or four million dollars of private money into the enterprise.


William Pugsley: No, only to the amount of $1,000 a mile. All above that goes to the company.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The company has to pay sufficient of its rental money over to the provincial government in order to keep down the interest on the bonds.


William Pugsley: And that is limited to $1,000 a mile.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And what about the earnings per mile? If the Minister of Public Works can find financiers who will ac-

cept a proposition like that, to raise sufficient money to pay the difference between the cost of construction and the moneys that will be available under the guarantee and the federal subsidy, he will be doing the people of ,the province a great service. It will .be surprising, I think, to the financiers of the country if such a proposition can be made to go in this country. I have referred also to the proposition which the Minister of Public Works put through the New Brunswick legislature in the session of 1907. After the passage of that Act, the firm of Mackenzie & Mann sent engineers over this route, and they communicated to the Minister of Public Works ithe fact that that railway could not be built for the amount of the guarantee plus the federal subsidy, estimating the cost of the line at $40,000 a mile at least exclusive of bridging; and they informed the Minister of Public Works that they could not entertain the proposition at all unless the guarantee were increased to $30,000 a mile. Will the hon. minister deny that?


William Pugsley: I think they..wanted some other conditions imposjed, which were met by the government operation. For instance, they wanted interest provided for during the first few years of operation. But fortunately this government saves the company from that and from loss in respect of that.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am quite correct in the statement I have made, that they estimated the cost as at least $40,000 per mile exclusive of bridging the St. John river* and asked that the guarantee of the bonds be increased from $15,000 to $30,000 a mile and furthermore, that for the first seven years of the operation of the road, the province should pay any deficiency which might arise in the earnings of the road necessary to pay the interest on the bonds, which does not look as if that firm at least looked for much surplus over and above the amount required to pay the interest on the bonds. For the next three years any deficiency paid by the province would remain a debt by the company to be repaid by the issue of further bonds.


William Pugsley: Now, the government has to pay 40 per cent of the earnings over to the company, no matter what the operating expenses may be.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The Minister of Public Works had the statement of Mr. Mann that the road could not be built for less than $40,000 per mile exclusive of bridging, and that it was necessary that there should be a guarantee of $30,000 a mile. That estimate was based, not on the specification of the Transcontinental railway system, which called for a grade of four-tenths of one per cent, with 80-pound rails, but on the specification prescribed by the Minister of Public Works in the Act which he had passed by the New Brunswick legislature in the session of 1907, namely, 67-pound rails, with no specification whatever as to grade further than that it should be up to the standard of a first class trunk line. Now, my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and the Minister of Public Works are very anxious to hear something about a recent proposition which has been made to the government of New Brunswick for the construction of this line. I suppose they refer to the proposition of their good and useful friend, Mr. Thomas Malcolm.


William Pugsley: The proposition I referred to was that of Mr. Malcolm on behalf
of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There is something rather peculiar in the manner in which this communication became * known. A member of the provincial opposition speaking the other day at Fredericton was the first to give it to the world. It seems that he had in some way received a conv of this letter which had been addressed by Mr. Malcolm to Mr. Hazen, the Premier of New Brunswick. The letter was marked ' private


William Pugsley: No, not the letter. There was no word * private * on the letter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Only the envelope was
marked ' private.'


Oswald Smith Crocket: I will read the letter as it appears in the official report of the New Brunswick legislature:
Campbellton, N.B., Feb. 25, 1911.
Dear Sir,-On behalf of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company, the charter of which has been granted by parliament with power to construct and equip a railway from Quebec to iSt. John, I hereby offer to enter into a contract to construct the portion from Grand Falls to St. John, the line when so constructed and equipped to be leased to the government of Canada and operated as part of the Intercolonial system, pursuant to the proposed legislation which the Dominion government has submitted to parliament.
The provincial legislation would, of course, have to be modified so as to conform to the proposed Dominion legislation as to lease, &c.
As I understand it, the bonds would be guaranteed as each ten miles are completed.
I am prepared to give the necessary security for payment of interest on the bonds during construction of each section until completed, and its operation assumed by the Intercolonial.
As you know, I have just completed the International railway, and my plant is now available to enable me to commence work at once, and complete the various sections with al! possible speed.
If your government is disposed to enter into

a contract with my company, I shall be pleased to meet with you and discuss the details of the agreement.
The Premier, Mr. Hazen, replied as follows :
Fredericton, N.B., March 2, 1911.
Thomas Malcolm, Esq.,
Campbellton, N.B.
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of your favour of the 25th ult., marked 'private,' which has been forwarded to me from St. John.
As soon as the Act of last session authorizing. the government of New Brunswick to give aid to the construction of the St. John Valley railway has been proclaimed and the resolutions, of which notice has been given in the House of Commons at Ottawa, have been discussed and disposed of, I will be very glad to meet you and discuss the details of any proposition which you have to make. I am, Tours very truly,


J. D. HAZEN.
[Stage Direction]
Does the Minister of Public Works now say that that letter was not marked ' private?'
William Pugsley: I will say exactly what Mr. Malcolm tells me. He addressed a public official letter, of which that is a copy, and which was not marked 'private,' to Mr. Hazen at St. John; that, as Mr. Hazen might be at Fredericton when the letter arrived, he wanted it to reach him personally, and therefore he wrote the word ' private' on the envelope, not on the letter; that Mr. Hazen, in replying to the letter as marked 'private,' referred to the envelope; and that Mr. Malcolm at once notified Mr. Hazen that the letter was not intended to be private and that he could make public use of it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: We have heard the minister's statement, and we have also heard the first paragraph of Mr. Hazen's letter in reply to Mr. Malcolm, in which he states that the letter was marked 'private.' I cannot see that it makes very much difference whether it was marked * private ' in the way the minister states or on the letter itself.


William Pugsley: It would make this difference. A charge has been made against Mr. Tweeddale, of Victoria county, that he read a private letter in the legislature. The letter itself was not marked 'private,' a copy of which he says was sent to him by the hon. member for Carleton to use in connection with the Bill of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company, but was a public document. Therefore it would not it seems to me, be objectionable for the hon. member for Carleton to send a copy of that letter to a member of the legislature of New Brunswick.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: We have the statement of the premier of New Brunswick that the letter was marked 'private.'


William Pugsley: The premier of New Brunswick will not tell you that the letter was marked 'private.'


Oswald Smith Crocket: The premier's letter
says, ' Your letter marked ' private ' which has been forwarded to me Irom St.John.' And furthermore, we have this,-a letter written by Mr. Malcolm, under date _ of March 6 to Mr. Hazen, acknowledging receipt of Mr. Hazen's letter;
Dear Sir,-Please accept my thanks for your favour to my letter of the 25th ult. Although marked ' private ' it was intended for you to use in council if you wished to do so.
So, if the Minister of Public Works has correctly repeated what Mr. Malcolm stated, then Mr. Malcolm's statement is at variance with what Mr. Malcolm himself wrote in his reply to the New Brunswick premier. There is another statement from Mr. Malcolm, which, is perhaps, later than the statement the Minister of Public Works has made in regard to , the making public of this communication. Mr. Hazen telegraphed to Mr. Malcolm on the date on which Mr. Tweeddale made use of this letter in the legislature, and this is Mr. Malcolm's reply to Mr. Hazen's telegram. It is dated Montreal. I suppose Mr. Malcolm had been in Ottawa, and, no doubt, was in close conference again with his friend the Minister of Public Works-
Montreal, March 17. Mr. J. D. Hazen, Premier.
Message received. I furnished Mr. Carvell with a copy of my offer, he having charge of Bill now before parliament, to amend Act relating to the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company. I know nothing about its being circulated in New Brunswick, your telegram being first intimation I had of it. b	fa	rimnc! MAT.nnT.ivr
The statement has been made on the New Brunswick legislature that this letter which Mr. Malcolm had addressed to Mr. Hazen had been circulated throughout the county of Carleton before it was read in the New Brunswick legislature. I think this correspondence disposes of the question whether this was intended as a private communication or not.
Now, Mr. Malcolm's offer he says, was made on behalf of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company. The Minister of Public Works states, and so does the hon. member for Carleton, that it was a bona fide proposition. But it is pretty difficult for me to believe-and I think it will be pretty difficult for most people in New Brunswick to believe-in view of the facts, that this is a bona fide proposition. Here is Mr. Malcolm, on the 25th of February, before the New Brunswick Act is pro-

claimed submitting to the New Brunswick government a proposition to construct for a bond guarantee of $25,000 a mile and the federal subsidy of $6,400 a line of railway which surveys then showed would cost from $43,000 to $48,000 a mile without seeing or applying to see the plans and profiles or the estimates. So far as Mr. Malcolm's proposition is concerned, it is to build from Grand Falls to St. John. The estimate of the New Brunswick government engineers is $43,000 a mile by one route, and $48,000 a mile by the other route. It it rather singular,, to say the least of it, that Mr. Malcolm, before the Act of the New Brunswick legislature, authorizing the guarantee of bonds for this railway had been proclaimed, while this resolution was standing on the Order Paper of this House, which resolution, I propose to show, was a rejection of the New Brunswick offer as embodied in the New Brunswick Ack-should have communicated such a proposition as that before any of these things had occurred without even waiting to learn the result of the surveys. He says he does so on behalf of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company. That company ' was incorporated by Act of this parliament in the session of 1900, that is eleven years ago. The company was authorized to construct a line of railway from Connors station on the Temiscouata railway to a point on the Intercolonial railway at or near St. Charles Junction, or a point on the Quebec Central railway at or near St. An-selme, or a point on the Grand Trunk at or near Chaudiere Junction, a distance of 130 miles. It was incorporated with a capital of $900,000. Eleven years have elapsed and, up to the present time, not one tap has been struck on the construction of that railway-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman is in error.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I examined the railway report. With the exception of a mile or two reported as under construction at the present time. With that exception the company has done absolutely nothing except get its charter amended and enlarged. The company came back in 1903 and got an extension of time. In 1908, having made another default, they came back, and, as a premium for their default, I suppose, obtained power to add another alternative to their original' route and build another new line from one of these termini to a point in the State of Maine. They obtained another extension of time in that year. In the session of 1909, having done nothing, the company came to this parliament again and obtained power to build another line, from Connors station down the River St. John to the city of St. John -a further premium, I suppose, for their further default. The Act of 1909 required
them to spend 15 per cent of their capital stock within two years after the passage of the Act, which was passed on the 16th of June, if I remember the date correctly, and to have the entire railway completed- all of these several lines being treated as one-within five years. Now, they come, having nothing done, asking for a further extension of two years. And, notwithstanding that they have received these added powers, their capital stock remains at the original figure of $900,000, which would require the expenditure of but $135,000 on all these three lines in the next two years to save their charter under the 15 per cent clause.
I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works and the member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) how that company can fairly be expected to undertake the construction of this line under the terms quoted. They have bonding privileges to the extent of $35,000 per mile; they must give a first mortgage to the government of New Brunswick to the extent of $25,000 a mile. I cannot see how it is possible that they should undertake the construction of that line on these terms with any possibility of carrying it to a successful completion, in volving, as it does, the raising of nearly $4,000,000 in addition to the amount realizable from the government guarantee_ and the federal subsidy-this company with a capital stock of $900,000.
Furthermore, I understand that they have given notice of legislation to obtain extension of time and an increase of capita! stock. The Bill submitted to this House contains no reference to capital stock, so that they expect, with capital stock standing at $900,000, to build such a line of railway as this mentioned in this resolution. It seems to me an entirely _ novel thing in railway construction in this country for a railway company, without having plans or profiles or taking any trouble to consult the estimates, to submit a proposition to build a $48,000 per mile road for $30,000 or $31,000 per mile.


William Pugsley: Mr. Malcolm said he had been over the ground himself, and he had sent an engineer over the entire route and examined it with the view of constructing the railway.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That may be like other statements which the Minister of Public Works has made with regard to Mr. Malcolm. But Mr. Malcolm knew that the government of New Brunswick were conducting a survey of this line, that the survey was complete and available to any who choose to apply for the information, yet, as I understand it, Mr. Malcolm submits this proposition before that Act is proclaimed, while this legislation is standing on the Order Paper- which I will show is a rejection of the New Brunswick legislation-without having ex-

amined the plans or profiles or even applying for any information respecting them.
If the people of New Brunswick can be induced to think that Mr. Malcolm was acting in good faith when he made that proposition, they are very easily persuaded. For my part I believe that it is a pure bluff made for the purpose of enabling the Minister of Public Works to give some excuse for the terms of this resolution, and in anticipation of this debate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: "Why do you not call the bluff?


Oswald Smith Crocket: The government of New Brunswick is not in the bluff business. In addition to this extraordinary standard, the Minister of Public Works has taken care to insist that the government of New Brunswick or the contracting company must also provide the rolling stock. I submit that that is most unreasonable.


William Pugsley: Only the initial rolling stock.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. Malcolm is in this position with respect to his offer that-if these estimates are to be relied on which have been made up by Mr. Maxwell and his associates appointed by the New Brunswick government, according to which the road is estimated to cost $48,800 a mile from Grand Falls to St. John-his company is in the position of having to build a line oi railway which will cost over $10,000,000 out of a fund which will not exceed $6,000,000, so that the company would require to raise $4,000,000 aside from the bond guarantee and subsidy.


William Pugsley: How does the hon. gentleman arrive at these figures?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I took them from the report Mr. Maxwell submitted to the New Brunswick legislature, I took them from the official report of the survey made to the New Brunswick government which was tabled in the legislature the other day. That statement shows that the cost of the railway from Grand Falls to St. John, including all bridges, 207 miles at $48,830 per mile would be $10,107,626; from Grand Falls via Perry Point to St. John, 210 miles at $43,980 per mile, $9,237,390; at $25,000 per mile under the New Brunswick bond guarantee plus $6,410 per mile, would not give more than $30,000 per mile, when you deduct the commission and the discount on the bonds, so that we have $10,000,000 by one route and $9,250,000 by another route, with a little over $6,000,000 available in this wav, and yet this good friend of the Minister of Public Works desires to raise the difference of nearly $4,000,000 for the purpose of constructing this line and passing it over to the Intercolonial to be operated under a 99 year lease. If that is a proposition which the Minister of Public Mr. CROCKET.
Works expects the people of New Brunswick to take seriously, he will be mistaken.
With regard to the rolling stock, why should this government insist upon the New Brunswick government or the construction company providing the rolling stock? Has that ever been done before?


William Pugsley: In the provincial statute that is provided for.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The Canadian Pacific railway has taken many railways over under long leases, and I understand it is their invariable practice to provide the rolling stock and equipment upon a basis of 60 per cent to 40 per cent similar to the terms in this resolution. What has this government itself done with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific? Hon. members are aware that under the terms of that contract, the government leases that road to the Grand Trunk Pacific for a period of 50 years. What wras the provision in that Act. It was that the lessees, the Grand Trunk Pacific, should provide the rolling stock? Did the government say, after building the line and passing it over to the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate under a 50 year lease, that the lessor should provide all of the rolling stock? No, the lessees are required to provide it. Yet when they come to consider this proposition from the New Brunswick government, the government which is to take this road over and become lessee insists that the New Brunswick government shall provide the rolling stock in addition to providing the railway, and that this government shall simply take it over and operate it It seems to me that that is a proposition which could not have been made for the purpose of expediting the construction of this railway. Why should this government refuse? I understood the Minister of Railways this afternoon to say that the initial equipment was a matter of small concern, probably not more than a quarter of a million dollars. If it is such a bagatelle as that surely the Minister of Public Works and the members of this government would not allow this proposition to fail by refusing to contribute even so small an amount as that towards the securing of this railway which they have stated is a matter of such urgent importance to the province of New Brunswick.


George Perry Graham: If the hon. member will read section 10 of the New Brunswick Act he will see that the New Brunswick government demands from the company just what we have included' in this, that is they must provide the initial rolling stock before they can bond the road.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I shall refer to that, and perhaps the minister will get more light on it than he seems to have at the present time. In addition to what I have said with respect to the rolling stock, the In-

tercolonial railway have now rolling stock valued at $19,000,000 or over $13,000 per mile upon a mileage of upwards of 1,400 miles. Then they have railway workshops erected at a cost of millions of dollars to this country, where locomotives and cars are manufactured. What objection could there be, if this government are really desirous to construct this railway, to their equipping it with rolling stock to the extent of $250,000? If the road is operated as part of the government railway system it will become an important branch. Can not the Intercolonial railway run their rolling stock from Moncton on the St. John Valley railway just as easily as they do upon the Canada Eastern railway? I am going to ask that this resolution be altered so that the government of Canada will at least do some little part besides paying the subsidy in the effort that is being made to secure the construction of this line?


William Pugsley: Has the attention of the hon. gentleman been called to section 10 of the Act passed by the New Brunswick legislature at the instance of the New Brunswick government?
Before any of the company's bonds shall be guaranteed, the company shall provide in a manner satisfactory to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by a deposit in money or other sufficient security, or by a deposit of part money and part security, in addition to such mortgage, for the payment of the interest on such bonds during the construction of the said line of railway, and until the same shall have been fully completed and provided with the initial equipment passed and approved by the government engineer.


Oswald Smith Crocket: My attention has been called to it, and I propose calling the attention of the minister to that and other sections of the Act.


William Pugsley: What is the meaning of that?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Those were the terms that the Minister of Public Works deemed it to be his duty to insist on as the condition of this government entering into the consideration of this project. I think I have shown that there were conditions, which the minister must have known would have rendered impossible the construction of this railway, but he did not find the New Brunswick government quite so easy as he thought. They pushed the matter to the extent of passing an Act at the last session of the legislature. My friend from Carleton found that the matter was getting so warm in his constituency and the Minister of Public Works found it so warm along the St. John river that it was necessary that something further should be done in the matter. So a letter was procured from the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) which my
hon. friend read at a meeting in the constituency of Carleton. The Prime Minister's letter simply stated that he would stand by the specification as prescribed in the letter of the Minister of Public Works, and insist upon the equipment of this road being made by the government of New Brunswick or by the railway company. Then the New Brunswick legislature took that proposal for what it was worth, they had the Act of last session passed in the terms prescribed by this government, except with respect to the rolling stock.


William Pugsley: And tied their own hands, did'nt they?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am going to show that this resolution misquotes the legislation that was passed in New Brunswick, and is an attempt to deceive the members of this House and the people of the province of New Brunswick. Section 11 reads:
No such agreement shall be entered into with any company or corporation for the construction of the said line of railway or for the guaranteeing of the said bonds, and no such bonds or debentures shall be guaranteed, unless and until the parliament of Canada shall enact legislation authorizing the granting of a subsidy in aid of the construction of the said railway, to the amount of not less than $6,400 per mile, and authorizing the entering, by the said government of Canada into an agreement with such company or corporation and with the government of New Brunswick aforesaid, for the leasing of the said line of railway, when completed, with its appurtenances and rolling stock and for the operation, equipment, maintenance, upkeep, and repair by such government of Canada as part of the government railway system of Canada for a period of 99 years and for the payment by the government of Canada to the said province of New Brunswick or the government thereof, each year, during the said term of 99 years of 40 per cent per annum of the gross earnings of said railway.
The committee will observe that the condition as there set out requires an agreement on the part of this government to lease that road for a period of 99 years, not only to lease it upon completion, but to operate, equip, maintain, upkeep and repair. This resolution -which the Minister of Railways has read deliberately omits the word ' equipment ' and is a false statement of the legislation as passed by the legislature of the province of New Brunswick. It is simply impossible that the construction of this road can be advanced if this legislation passtes the House in its present form, because the government of New Brunswick has prescribed as one of the conditions of the guarantee that" there must be an agreement for the leasing and for the equipment and operation of the railway.


William Pugsley: It says maintenance, operation, upkeep and repair.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There is another section No. 16 setting forth the specification in the terms of the minister's letter. That section concludes with this proviso:
And such contracts

That is the contract for the construction and operation of the road.
Provided that such railways shall he equipped by the said company or by the government of Canada with proper and sufficient rolling stock.
So there can be no question as to what the position of the New Brunswick government was upon this matter. Then Mr. Hazen in his speech in the House in introducing this legislation stated that it was most unfair to call upon the province of New Brunswick not only to guarantee bonds to the extent of $25,000 a mile for the construction of the line, but to insist that it should equip this road with rolling stock for operation by the Intercolonial railway. The position of the government was made clear in that respect. Yet this legislation, which purports to be an acceptance of this proposition, is actually a rejection of the offer of the New Brunswick government as embodied in fhat legislation. I am going to move, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the resolution be amended, and I cannot see what possible objection can be made by any member of this government to the insertion of a word in the preamble of this resolution which will convert it from an untruthful into a truthful preamble. I am going to move:
That the proposed resolution be amended by inserting the word 'equipment' between the words 'operation' and 'maintenance' in the fifteenth line of the preamble and by striking out the words ' with its appurtenances and rolling stock when completed and equipped with rolling stock and for the operation' in the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh lines and substituting in lieu therefor the words, 'when completed with its appurtenances and rolling stock and for the operation and equipment.'
So that the resolution will truthfully set forth the legislation passed by the New Brunswick legislature and conform to the provisions of the New Brunswick Act.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend think it possible, in view of section 10 of their Act, which says in so many words that they will not guarantee the bonds unless the company provide the initial equipment


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They cannot guarantee the bonds.


George Perry Graham: They cannot guarantee them now under the Act. Does not my hon. friend think that he will be absolutely Mr. CROCKET.
preventing this government from doing anything if he introduces these words?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have read section 11 of this Act.


George Perry Graham: Read section 10.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Section 11 of this Act contains the condition set forth in the resolution before the House, and I ask any member of this committee to follow the reading of the preamble of this resolution with the reading of this section.


William Pugsley: Read section 10, which provides for guaranteeing the bonds.


George Perry Graham: It simply nullifies the whole thing if you do that.


Oswald Smith Crocket: This is section 11.


George Perry Graham: Read section 10.


Oswald Smith Crocket: No such agreement shall be entered into with any company or corporation for the construction of the said line of railway or for the guaranteeing of the said bonds, and no snch bonds or debentures shall be guaranteed unless and until the parliament of Canada shall enact legislation authorizing the granting of a subsidy in aid of the construction of the said railway-

that has already been done.
-to the amount of not less than $6,400 per mile, and authorizing the entering by the said government of Canada into an agreement with such company or corporation and with the government of New Brunswick aforesaid, for the leasing of the said line of railway, when completed, with its appurtenances and rolling stock and for the operation, equipment, maintenance, upkeep and repair-


William Pugsley: Does not that provide-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How can the government of New Brunswick under that legislation guarantee the bonds of this company unless that agreement is entered into with this government under the terms which are there stated, one of the terms being that the government shall undertake to enter into this lease and provide for the operation and equipment of the railway? The preamble states the conditions untruthfully and insists that the government will take it over only when the road is equipped with Tolling stock, which is contrary to the terms of the New Brunswick legislation.


William Pugsley: Will my_ hon. friend allow me to ask him a question?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman has intimated that he wishes to close before six o'clock.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think that I have been pretty indulgent to the Minister ,of Public Works this afternoon.


William Pugsley: All right.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I propose, therefore, to move the amendment which I have already read that the word ' equipment5 be inserted in that way, and that the other words that I have read be substituted for the words that appear in lines 26 and 27. Then that resolution will conform precisely with the legislation as it has been passed by the New Brunswick legislature. If the government do not accept that legislation then the whole matter is off, because the legislation of this parliament and the legislation of New Brunswick are at variance, and no work can be gone on with. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) seconds the motion.


William Pugsley: I am quite sure that the words of the resolution which provide that the government shall maintain, operate and keep up tike railway under this lease for ninety-nine years means the providing of the necessary equipment. All that has to be provided by the company is the ini tial equipment. My hon. friend has called attention to section 10 of the New Brunswick Act and also to section 11. I say they both provide very clearly that the company must provide the initial equipment. If the company does not do that the provincial government cannot guarantee the bonds. Take section 10. which provides that:
Before any of the company's bonds shall be guaranteed, the company shall provide, in a manner satisfactory to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by a deposit in money or other sufficient security, or of a deposit of part money and part security, in addition to such mortgage, for the payment of interest on such bonds during the construction of the said line of railway, and until the same shall have been fully completed and provided with the initial equipment passed and approved by the government engineer.
When that condition is fulfilled, and not until then, has . the provincial government any power to guarantee the bonds, and, Sir, these are the words, not of this government, not of the member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), or myself, but they are the words of the government of New Brunswick which they have introduced into the, statute and asked the legislature to enact. Then, section 11, which my hon. friend relied upon, provides that:
No such agreement, shall be entered into with any company or corporation for the construction of the said line of railway for the guaranteeing of the said bonds, and no such bonds or debentures shall be guaranteed unless and until the parliament of Canada shall enact legislation authorizing the granting of a subsidy in aid of the construction of the said railway to the amount of not less than $6,400 per mile, and authorizing the entering, by the said government of Canada into an agreement with such company or corporation and with the government of New Brunswick aforesaid, for the leasing of the said line of railway when completed with its appurtenances and rolling stock-


Oswald Smith Crocket: Read the next word.


William Pugsley: So, Sir, the legislature has provided


George Perry Graham: They have tied it up.


William Pugsley: They have tied their hands. Perhaps they did it because they thought they would prevent the government operation of this St. John Valley railway, which is the last thing in the world th^t the government of New Brunswick wants.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does not this resolution omit the word ' equipment ' from the preamble?


William Pugsley: That is not the point. We are speaking now of the initial equipment.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is not the condition set forth in the preamble of the resolution taken from section 11, and is not the word ' equipment ' omitted?
Mr. PUGSLEY No, it provides in the first place just as the legislature of New Brunswick, at the instance of the provincial government, has provided: that the company must provide the initial equipment. Then, when the initial equipment is provided the company becomes the lessee; it agrees to operate the road for 99 years, and after the initial equipment is once provided by the company the company has nothing more to do with it. The company must provide the initial rolling stock and the government must provide for the upkeep of the road and the rolling stock during the whole term of 99 years.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Then, what is the object of omitting the word 'equipment?5


William Pugsley: There is no object.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Then why not accept the amendment?


William Pugsley: The thing is so plain that any man who wishes to understand it can understand it. What the government ask the company to do is to provide for the initial equipment. My hon. friend says it is unfair for this government to require the company to provide the initial equipment, but .the provincial government is requiring the same thing. The provincial government has tied its hands and provided by statute that it cannot guarantee one of these bonds until the company provides the initial equipment, and then it is the railway and the rolling stocK which are to be leased to the government of Canada. Whatever rolling stock the government of Canada puts on the road after the initial equipment is its own rolling stock, but section II provides that the company is to

lease its rolling stock with the road to the government, and that is of course the initial rolling stock which is to be provided by the company. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) said that the provincial legislature has required certain things, and has excused itself for making these stipulations because of a letter which I wrote to the president of the railway company and which was afterwards confirmed by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. But, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) should have called attention to the fact that in the letter which I wrote to the president of the company I stated that if these terms cannot be agreed upon by the provincial government, then a conference should be held and a modification considered. I held out a hand to the provincial government and gave them an opportunity to say that if they thought these terms too onerous, if they thought it would not be possible to get the company to build and provide the initial equipment for the road, then let them come to the federal government and suggest such modifications as they might require. I have here a letter which I addressed to Mr. Chestnut, who was the president of the railway company, and 1 have a letter which Mr. Chestnut addressed to Mr. Hazen, premier of New Brunswick, in which he referred to an interview he had with me, and in which I told him that if the provincial government regarded these conditions as too hard, then the proper thing for the provincial government to do was to ask the legislature to provide that the specifications and conditions should be left to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. -1 left a way open there for negotiations, and after recess I will read that letter. The provincial government was so anxious to prevent government operation of the St. John Valley railway that they had asked the legislature to absolutely tie their hands so that no matter what modification the Minister of Railways might be willing to make, no matter what change in the situation he might be willing to agree to, the provincial government would not be able to act. It is the most extraordinary action I ever knew a government to take, they being one party to a proposed bargain, we being another, and we suggesting certain terms, they declined to ask the legislature to leave it to them to negotiate; they declined to ask the legislature to allow reconsideration of the conditions, but they asked the legislature to tie their hands so that unless the conditions were complied with in the minutest particular they could not guarantee the bonds. But, Sir, they will be obliged, if they want this road built (as they know now from the report of their own engineer), they will be obliged to go back to the legislature and ask that modifications be enacted, or they will never get a road such as the people of the province of Mr. PUGSLET.
New Brunswick are demanding, and which is necessary for the progress, prosperity and development of that beautiful St. John river valley.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Pugsley: Before recess I was speaking of the equipment of this railway. T would like to understand clearly what my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) desires by his amendment. Is it that, it may be made more clear that the Intercolonial railway is to provide for all equipment after the initial equipment?


John Waterhouse Daniel: I expect my hon. friend from York, to be here in a moment; but I understand that in wishing to insert the word * equipment ' in the resolution, his idea is that it will then devolve upon the Intercolonial railway to provide the rolling stock and to operate the railway after its construction.


William Pugsley: If that is what my hon. friend desires by the amendment, I may say that the provincial statute will not permit that to be done. But that, as I understand, was not the substance of the amendment. I understood that he wanted it to appear clearly by the resolution that after the initial equipment, which will probably cost not more than $1,000 a mile, making the total cost about $200,000, or, as the Minister of Railways said, about $250,000. the Intercolonial railway should be bound to furnish the additional equipment that should be required from time to time. I may say to my hon. friend that that is the intention of the government in using the words, ' operation, maintenance, upkeep and repair.' The Minister of Railways intended that that should include all repairs to the rolling stock, all additions to the Tolling stock, the furnishing of the cars, locomotives and equipment necessary to operate the road during the whole term of the lease. This, of course, would be increased from time to time as the business of the road increased.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is meant by initial equipment?


William Pugsley: To enable it to pass the lieutenant Governor in Council of the province of New Brunswick. Under section 10 of the New Brunswick statute it is provided that before any of the bonds shall be guaranteed, the road shall be fully completed and provided with the initial equipment, and that is to be passed and approved by the government engineer. After that is provided satisfactory to the Lieutenant. Governor of New Brunswick, the In-

tercolonial railway takes charge, operates, and provides all the equipment, all the renewals, all the repairs to the rolling stock and everything, including maintenance, which shall be required during the term of the lease.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The last clause of section 10 is: ' and until the same shall have been fully completed and provided with the initial equipment passed and approved by the government engineer.' Then, the minister lost sight of the last clause of section 16: ' and such contract (for the construction of the railway) shall also provide that such railway shall be equipped by the said company or by the government of Canada with proper and sufficient rolling stock.' So that while section 10 has this provision with respect to equipment, section 16 provides that that must he provided either by the company or by the government of Canada. That is the position of the provincial government. The position of this government, as I understand it, is that the rolling stock must be provided out of the provincial guarantee either by the company or by the provincial government.


William Pugsley: No; that the initial rolling stock shall be provided by the company; then, iby the lease to which the Dominion of Canada will be a party, the Intercolonial railway shall provide all the rolling stock which shall be required after that during the whole term of the lease.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister will see that the company, having available only the $30,000 provincial guarantee and the federal subsidy, must not only build the road, but equip it if this government does not accept the offer of the New Brunswick government as embodied in thfe statute.


William Pugsley: Not necessarily. I understand that they will have available $35,000 of a bond issue, of which $25,000 shall be secured by a first mortgage and $10,000 by a second mortgage; also $6,400 a mile of Dominion subsidy; also capital stock to the amount of $900,000. If they can finance the undertaking, they have plenty of securities to place with capitalists for the purpose of raising the neces-sarv money to provide the initial Tolling stock.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That would require the company to raise at least $2,000,000 of their own funds in addition to the guarantee.


William Pugsley: Not at all. I do not see why they could not furnish the initial equipment under such a favourable lease as the Dominion government propose to enter into with them. The provincial government absolutely requires that this initial rolling stock shall be provided by the company, because it has to be provided before the bonds are guaranteed. The provincial government is to guarantee the bonds as each ten miles are finished. The Intercolonial railway is not to begin the operation until certain sections of the road are provided with the initial rolling stock by the company. I was asking my hon. friend what he desired by his amendment.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The purpose of the amendment is to make this resolution conform with section 11 of the New Brunswick Act, which provides that the provincial government can guarantee no bonds until this government agrees to lease the road upon completion, and makes an agreement for its equipment, operation, maintenance, upkeep and repair. This preamble leaves out the word ' equipment,' which is in the New Brunswick Act, and which must be in the agreement before the Lieutenant Governor in Council would have authority under this section to guarantee the bonds. I certainly think that this government ought to undertake to provide the initial equipment.


William Pugsley: It is absolutely clear that the provincial Act does not admit that, because it provides that the initial equipment must be furnished before the bonds are guaranteed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The hon. minister says that the Act will not let him. I can give him the assurance that if this government will undertake to provide the initial equipment and the rolling stock, the New Brunswick Act will be very quickly amended if it is necessary. The New Brunswick legis lature is now in session.


George Perry Graham: Then the hon. gentleman admits that under the New Brunswick Act, as it now stands, we cannot provide the initial equipment. In that Act the provincial legislature says that they cannot guarantee the bonds unless the company provides the initial equipment. That is the statute we are trying to confirm.


Robert Laird Borden: Why leave out the word 'equipment.'


George Perry Graham: It will conflict, because they say the company will provide the initial equipment, and that the New Brunswick government will only guarantee the bonds on that condition. I am quite willing to amend the resolution so as to provide that after the company has furnished the initial equipment, the lessee will provide all the equipment necessary from that date on. That will hurt no one.


Robert Laird Borden: The word ' equipment ' has some meaning as it is in the New Brunswick Act. When you recite

the New Brunswick Act, I do not see the justification for leaving it out.


William Pugsley: We do not profess to give the exact words of the Act, but only its effect. Take for instance, section 9. It says:	The guarantee is to be a guarantee bonds secured upon the railway franchise, stations, right of way and all rolling stock.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There would be some rolling stock in connection with the construction of the road.


William Pugsley: Not at all, because the construction is done by a contractor.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But there must always be some rolling stock.


William Pugsley: Not owned by the company. That would be the contractors' rolling stock. What I asked my hon. friend was to make clear what it was he wanted by his amendment. If he wants the Intercolonial railway to provide the initial rolling stock, I say that that is not contemplated by the provincial statute. I say also it would not be fair. The hon. gentleman has quoted the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company leasing the National Transcontinental railway, and he says that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is required to furnish the rolling stock. So it is, but the government leases its road to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for fifty years at a rental of 3 per cent on the cost and gives the road the seven first years of operation absolutely free of rental.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Longer if they do not make a rental.


William Pugsley: Yes, three years longer if they do not earn the rental. Is that the case here? No. From the very day the road is finished, from the time each section is finished, the government is authorized to enter upon its operation and not have it free of rent. No, whether the company's road earns the rent or not, whether the operating expenses are cleared or not, out of the total gross earnings the government is bound to pay to the province of New Brunswick, for the purpose of providing interest on the bonds the very large percentage of 40 per cent of the gross earnings of the road. So far from any criticism being made on this government or myself or on my hon. friend from Carl-eton (Mr. Carvell), and the other Liberal members from New Brunswick, who induced my hon. colleague the Minister of Railways to make this agreement we ought to receive the thanks of every man interested in the construction of the railway along the valley of the St. John. This government only agreed to this liberal arrangement because we realize that -we have in that portion of the province of New Brunswick a section of country Mr. BORDEN (Halifax!.
which, I do not hesitate to say, for richness and- fertility of the soil, for the opportunities it affords for supporting a large population, is not surpassed by any part of the Dominion. It is only because the government felt that that section of country, which had been settled so many years, and was absolutely without railway accommodation, was entitled to that accommodation-it was only because of the, strong feeling which my right hon. friend, the First Minister, and the other members of the government have with respect to the claims of the people of that section, that the government considered itself justified in ^making this most liberal arrangement. To show you that we made a most liberal arrangement, let me say that in Ontario where the Grand Trunk have many lines leased, they have scarcely ever paid more than thirty or thirty-five per cent of the gross earnings. I asked Mr. Hays of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway if, in case an arrangement could be made with the provincial government, his company would undertake to operate the road. He said that they would consider its operation, but only on the basis of spventy per cent and thirty per cent. Here however, we have an agreement by this government undertaking that from the very first day the various sections are open to traffic, the government will pay over the large proportion of forty per cent of the gross earnings. I am almost afraid to mention what is the liability this government is undertaking. It is impossible to state that accurately, but I am rather inclined to the view that in addi-+ ion to the subsidy of $6,400 per mile, the government, during the first five years operation of the St. John Valley road, will be obliged to incur a liability of at least $1,-f'OO.OOO. That means an expenditure for the benefit of the people along the St. John valley of at least $2Q0,000 a year. After five years something will begin to come in, the increased earnings will be large, and no doubt the government will then be able to pay over this amount, and probably sixty per cent will cover all the operating expenses of the railway, but the offeT is a most generous one on the part of this government. When it was announced that we had agreed to pay forty per cent of the gross earnings, my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), who was formerly Minister of Railways told me, that he was utterly surprised that we had made such a liberal arrangement. I explained to him that it was only by reason of the great importance of the road, and of the very strong desire the government had to give the people of St. John valley this railway accommodation that we agreed to this most liberal treatment.
I want to go back a little over the history

of this St. John Valley railway. I am not going back beyond the year 1909. The hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) referred to what took place when I was premier of New Brunswick, and sought to secure the construction of this road through Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann. But that is ancient history. The people of St. John valley have waited so long for this road, they are so vitally interested in securing its early completion that they do not care what any public man of New Brunswick did or said even four years ago. They are tired and sick of political and party squabbles, and to a man they are united in a demand that all political differences shall be sunk, all party spirit voted down, and that all public men of the province shall unite in securing the early construction of this railway. What they want is that we on both sides shall earnestly strive and bring to bear our best judgment and ability in order to secure the early construction of the road. I shall begin, not in 1907, but in 1909, when a delegation composed of the directors and principal stockholders of the St. John Valley railway and other people interested in that line came to Ottawa.
They interviewed my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and a number of his colleagues, of whom I was one. And I remember the president of the company was Mr. C. Fred. Chestnut, then mayor of the city of Fredericton. They submitted their proposal and said that the government of New Brunswick had stated to them through the Premier that that government would be willing to get authority from the legislature to guarantee the bonds to the extent of $25,000 per mile, provided this government would, through the Intercolonial railway, operate the road upon the basis of paying to the company, or to the government of New Brunswick, 40 per cent of the gross earnings. It is true, as stated by my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) that the Prime Minister expressed himself in the most sympathetic manner when they got through their presentation of the case, and stated that his answer would be given to them at as early a date as possible. My hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) says that the Prime Minister stated that this was a definite proposal. I was present, and have to take issue with my hon. friend on that point; and I am satisfied that his memory does not serve him rightly with regard to what took place on that occasion. My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) was there also. I can only say that I have *no recollection of the Prime Minister having made that statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How could he?


William Pugsley: And, as my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) says, how could he?


Oswald Smith Crocket: If the minister will allow me-is he not aware that the St.
John ' Telegraph ' contained a report of the proceedings before the government on that occasion, telegraphed from Ottawa by their Ottawa correspondent in the course of which it was stated that the Prime Minister described the proposition as a definite proposition.


William Pugsley: All I can say is that I have not seen any such report so far as I now recollect, and I have no recollection of the Prime Minister making the statement attributed to him. And he could not make the statement, because there was no definiteness in the proposition; there was only the broad statement that the provincial government would guarantee bonds at $25,000 a mile, provided the government would agree to operate the road as part of the Intercolonial. Does my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) as a reasonable man, not see that the question of operating and of the percentage which would be paid would, in justice to the people of Canada for whom this government speaks and acts, necessarily be the most important question? Could the government afford to have the road built with rails of 40 pounds to the yard? Could it afford to have the road built with wooden bridges, with curves shorter than are suitable for profitable railroad operation, with grades unsuitable for a first-class road ? Surely, the hon. gentleman must see from his own statement that there was no definiteness whatever in their proposition. This interview took place on the 12th of April, and he said that this government actually waited until the 18th of April before giving a reply-


Oswald Smith Crocket: I see that nothing was done until the 28th of April.


William Pugsley: Well, the 28th: That is just sixteen days after the interview. Surely my hon. friend cannot be serious when he suggests that sixteen days was a long time for the government to take to consider a question of such enormous importance as this, one which may involve this country in a liability of at least a million dollars in the first five years of the operation of the road, before the traffic reaches the proportions to which we hope it will grow in the not distant future? I think that every reasonable man will. see that if the government waited sixteen days, that- was not an unduly long time to wait. Now, what took place then? My hon. friend from Carleton, as I understand, in response to a request from the secretary of the company, Mr. Winslow, wired that he had seen the Prime Minister-if I remember correctly-and that the Prime Minister suggested that the provincial government should have legislation passed, and then submit their definite proposition to this government, and the government would be



prepared at a very early day to give them an answer. I understand that, upon that telegram being received, a delegation of the people from the St. John valley waited upon the premier of the province, Mr. Hazen, and he promised to introduce legislation in the session of 1909, leading the people to believe that he was going to introduce the legislation providing for the guarantee. But, at the last moment, he declined to do so, for reasons, as I suppose, best known to himself.
The matter then went over. Later on, a communication was made from the president of the company to me, and I wrote the letter of June 19, 1909, to which my hon. friend has referred. I would ask any hon. member of this House, I would ask the people of New Brunswick, and especially those in the St. John valley, to read that letter and see whether it was a proper letter for me, as Minister of Public Works, to have written. I suggest that a definite proposition should he made:	I
suggest that the road should be built to a high standard-I said in a general way that it should be built up to the standard of the Transcontinental, making it a first-class trunk line; I indicated a four-tenths per cent grade and Tails of 80 pounds to the yard, bridges of steel and the roadbed of a first-class line. I did that because I was not then prepared, and am not now prepared to advocate the countenance by this government of the "ranting of any aid to this road, or entering into any contract with the company which may engage in the construction of the road, which does not provide not merely for a local railway, but for one which, in the future, may be_ part of a Transcontinental line which will bear the traffic of the fertile west to the great port of St. John for shipment to the markets of the old world. That is the ideal I had before me, and that is the reason I was anxious to have the road built to a high standard. In that letter, I suggested that if the provincial government made their proposition and we did not accept it, then I would suggest that a conference he held so that modifications might be agreed upon. The provincial government did not act upon that suggestion, and I desire to say now, and to make a statement, which, I am sure, will strike the House as extraordinary, that -the government of New Brunswick which has professed to be so anxious to secure the construction of this St. John valley railway has never directly communicated with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways or myself, the member of the government representing the province of New Brunswick, with regard to its construction: every communication has been made through third parties, either officers of the St. John Valley Railway Company or the members of a Mr. PTTGSLEY.
delegation. Later on, when it came to the winter of 1910, Mr. Chestnut, the president of the St. John Valley Railway Company, who had been taking a very great interest in the line, and had done everything possible to secure its early construction, came to see me in Ottawa. And just a few days ago, I received a letter from Mr. Chestnut which is marked ' personal '. Mr. Chestnut speaks as a man who was mayor of Fredericton. He was, and I believe he is to-day, president of the St. John Valley Railway Company. He, as much at all events as any other man, nas taken a hearty interest in this project. He has been several times to Ottawa with reference to it, and has done everything he could to facilitate the undertaking and secure the construction of the road. And, allow me to say, Mr. Chairman, I go into this matter somewhat in detail, because there is a determined effort on the part of certain public men in the province of New Brunswick-I am afraid on the part of the government for which my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) presumes to speak to-night when he ventures to give the assurance to the Minister of Railways that the government will amend its Act upon his suggestion, and on receiving word from him, to place the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and myself and this government in a false position with regard to this matter.
Therefore it is that I venture, even although I may weary the House, to go somewhat into detail in connection with what took place.	.
On March 13 of this year Mr. Chestnut wrote me as follows:
Hon. William Pugsley,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Possibly you may remember that the St. John Valley Railway Company sent me to Ottawa, in February of last year, to see you in connection with the possibility of bringing about a modification of the standard, of the proposed road, which would be acceptable to the provincial government. Also to discuss other matters bearing upon the same project. This, of course, was before Mr. Hazen brought down his legislation.
Let my hon. friend mark that Mr. Chestnut came to Ottawa as the president of this company for the purpose of interviewing me in regard to modifications with reference to the standard, and this was before the provincial government had brought down their legislation of last yeaT. Mr. Chestnut says:
This, of course, was before Mr. Hazen brought down his legislation.
You presented your views to me so frankly, and fairly, that I asked for and obtained, your consent to communicate the substance of my interview with you to Premier Hazen, which I did upon my return to this city.
At Mr. Hazen's request I left with him a

memorandum, setting forth what I understood 3'our views to be, in regard to the points then under discussion.
I am now inclosing herewith a copy of said memorandum with the thought that it may, even at this date, be of some interest to you. Especially so perhaps when it is considered that this information was in Mr. Hazen's hands before his Bill re the St. John Valley Railway (section 16, part 2, fixes the standard) was introduced. Also in view of the fact that the local government press now try to make it appear that the federal government fixed an impossible standard. Which of course is ridiculous.
Yours respectfully,


C. FRED. CHESTNUT.
[Stage Direction]
There is the letter from the President of the St. John Valley Railway Company which was organized by leading citizens from all the counties along the valley of the St. John from almost its upper waters down to the city of St. John.
Oswald Smith Crocket: Can the minister state whether Mr. Chestnut interviewed him at Ottawa before Mr. Carvell read the letter the Prime Minister gave him? I think it was on the 25th of January.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, this would be after.


William Pugsley: This is on February 14, 1910, that he writes to Mr. Hazen. Let me read this letter which Mr. Chestnut, as President of the St. John Valley Railway Company, wrote to Air. Hazen.
February 14, 191*.


Hon.  J. D.@: 
Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the minister on that occasion inform Mr. Chestnut that the government would be prepared to modify the conditions as laid down in his letter of June 19, and not to insist on a Transcontinental railway standard?
Mr. PTjGSLEY. Whaf I told Mr. Chestnut was that if the standard was objectionable to the local government, then let the provincial government ask the legislature to pass a law giving them authority to guarantee the bond's, but to leave it to the Governor in Council to determine as to the conditions. That would leave the way open, a>
I explained to him, for negotiations between the two governments. I told him that all this government wanted was to secure the construction of a road up to a high standard. If it was found impossible to do that wo were prepared, as the Minister of Railways had told me, to discuss the subject of modifications. The point I want to make is that on February 15, before Mr. Hazen had brought down the legislation in the provincial legislature, he was informed by Mr. Chestnut, the President of the St. John Valley Railway Company, that I had stated that in order to get over the objection which the premier of the province was making, it would be better that he should ask the legislature to provide in the Act that the specification should be subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That would leave the matter open.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the minister at that time intimate to Mr. Chestnut that the government would be prepared to modify the conditions as laid down in the letter of June 19?


William Pugsley: Yes. I said to Air. Chestnut that we had in mind, just as Mr. Chestnut says in his letter, to secure the building of a road up to a high standard, up to the general standard of the Transcontinental railway in New Brunswick , but that if in any part there were physical difficulties which .made it reasonably necessary to depart from that standard, I was sure the Minister of Rail-

ways would give favourable *consideration to any request the provincial government might make.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Anything in writing to that effect?


William Pugsley: Nothing in writing, but I have Mr. Chestnut's statement to Mr. Hazen of what I suggested to him and Mr. Chestnut conveyed that information to Mr. Hazen. Although they had that intimation from me, what does the provincial government do? They ask the legislature to pass a law, to be found in the statutes of 1910, consisting of three parts. The first part provides for the making of a survey. That has only been completed and the report filed with the provincial legislature in the last few days. Part 2 provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may guarantee the bonds of the railway company up to the amount of $25,000 sp mile, but it provides by section 16 that:
The specifications for said railway and the contract between the Lieutenant Governor in Council and such company, for the building of the same, shall require and call for the construction of a first-class trunk line of railway with grades not to exceed four-tenths of one per cent and to be ironed with steel rails weighing not less than 80 pounds to the yard, and shall provide that the bridges shall be of steel superstructure with substructure of stone or cement, culverts to be of masonry or concrete, being the description of the character of the road as set forth in a letter from the Hon. Wm. Pugsley, Minister of Public Works of the Dominion of Canada, to the secretary of the St. John Valley Railway Company, dated the 19th June, 1909, and approved by Sii Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada, in a letter addressed to Mr. F. B. Car-vell, M.P., dated January 28, 1910, and the said line of railway shall he built up to the before mentioned specifications and standard and shall be constructed subject to the inspection by and shall be built to the satisfaction of the provincial engineer or such other engineer or engineers as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may from time to time appoint to inspect the same.
The point I wish to make is that although I told the president of the St. John Valley Railway Company to say to Mr. Hazen that if they objected to the standard they should leave it to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to decide before entering into a contract to guarantee the bonds, and that he should then come to us and suggest what modifications he desired, but with that knowledge the provincial government asks the legislators not to leave that opportunity to determine afterwards as to the specifications, but to tie their hands, to tie themselves hand and foot so that they could not assist any railway unless it was built up to this very high standard. That, Sir, is the legislation that was brought Mr. PUGSLEY..
down. They provided under it, that the company must give a guarantee for the payment of interest upon the bonds for the whole line of road until the whole line is completed. They imposed upon them the very hardest possible conditions.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And pay it in money too.	.


William Pugsley: And Urey had to pay that in money. Then they passed part 3, and part 3 provides for a Toad not up to this high standard, but it provides for_ a road which may have the Intercolonial grades, which may begin at a point on the Canadian Pacific railway up the St. John riveT and which may end at another point on the Canadian Pacific railway, this being simply a connecting link between one point on the Canadian Pacific railway and another point. They provide that it may be an electric road, they do not provide foT any security in so far as the bonds are concerned, except what may Ibe the security of the company itself, and they provide that all they would be obliged to do, in so far as interest is concerned, is to make provision for the payment of interest until certain sections of the Toad are completed.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, when you find a government having legislation enacted with respect to a road that is to be built up to the high standard, that is to be followed by operation by the Intercolonial railway and therefore with behind it. all the credit that belongs to the government a.nd the people of Canada in connection with the operation of this road, when you find that they impose stricter and harsher conditions upon the company even than they do with respect to the building of what may be termed a second class road as railways' are today, considered, and when you find that it may even be an electric railway, what inference would you draw from their conduct? Would it not be that they were determined, by book or by crook, to prevent Intercolonial operation in the St. John Valley? Would you not infer that they were dcing this in the interest of the Canadian Pacific railway or some electrical company which was desirous of developing electrical energy? That is the inference which everyone must draw. That is the inference which the people in that part of the valley of the St. John are drawing to-day and, having drawn that inference, I believe that when the opportunity comes of expressing their opinion they will express it in no uncertain terms.
Now, as I have said, the provincial government have tied themselves hand and foot in so far as this legislation is concerned in connection with Intercolonial operation, they have refused to ask the legislature to give them power to negotiate, they have

refused to give themselves the power to ask for any modification of the terms, but they have passed the hard and fast, east iron provision that is contained in part 2 of the Act. They themselves appointed an engineer to make a survey, a very competent, a very experienced engineer-Mr. David F. Maxwell. The hon. gentleman has not read Mr. Maxwell's report to the committee. I do not believe that either my hon. friend or the provincial government would have derived much comfort from tire report, because I see that this report, made by a gentleman of their own selection, made by a gentleman whom they themselves had appointed, confirms to the fullest extent, the wisdom- of the course which I and my colleagues took, in insisting that this road should be built up to a high standard. That report shows that a road to the Transcontinental railway standard between Grand Falls and St. John with the exception of a comparatively short distance where -there would be a grade of one per cent, like the single pusher grade -at the Tobique upon the Transcontinental railway, would only cost a little over $3,000 per mile more than the second-class road which the government provided for by part 3 of this statute. In other words, the report of Mr. Maxwell shows that-the people will be able to secure a road having practically all the grades up to the standard of the Transcontinental railway for a little over $3,000 per mile more than they would -have to pay for a second-class road with grades -equal to the grades on the Intercolonial railway as proposed by part 3 of this Act, passed -by the legislature at this last session.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is on the proposed road to St. John?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the minister aware chat Mr. Maxwell in his- report states that if connection is made with the Canadian Pacific railway at Westfield or Welsford a transcontinental grade is absolu-e-tly out of the question?


William Pugsley: I might say to my hon. friend, and I say it with all sincerity, that in so far as the people of the St. John Valley are concerned, they are determined to have a railway extending right down to the-city of St. John. They are determined that the road shall not be a mere branch, a mere appendage of the Canadian Pacific railway. They want competition and they are clamouring for government ownership and government operation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister, in 1907, provided for connection at West-field and Welsford.


William Pugsley: That is true, because that was the suggestion of Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann. But things have -moved a long way ahead since 1907. I have learned a great deal also with regard to- the necessity of extending the Transcontinental railway down the valley of the St. John, more than I knew in 1907, and speaking with the knowledge that I have of the city and the people of St. John and of 'the people along the valley of the St. John and having in view the great developments which have already taken place during the last two or three years and which are going to take place in the near future at the port of St. John, the people of -St. John and the people of the St. John valley will not 'be contented with any line up and do-wn that magnificent valley that is to be a mere branch or appendage of 'the Canadian Pacific railway. _ They want a line that will be f. part of a through Transcontinental railway, that they are determined to have and that they will have unless 'their efforts are thwarted by the provincial government, my hon. friend, and those wh.-may be acting with them. Let me real .what the chief engineer appointed by the provincial government says in this report which were tabled only two or three days ago and which my hon. friend has not thought necessary to favour the House with. Speaking as to the section from Fredericton to St. John he says:
Having in mind the shortest route by which the city of St. John and the great developments for transportation purposes likely to be undertaken at Courtenay bay could he reached, and as in order to reach such point involved the crossing of the St. John river at some point, it was thought desirable to deflect the line here-that is at Evandale-and cross over to the left bank at the head of the 'Mistake/ so called; thence the line crosses Gorham creek and enters the valley of Kingston creek, passing through the village of Kingston, Kings county, to the Kennebecasis river, crossing same near the Gondola Point ferry; thence by the left bank of the latter river through Rothesay, Renforth and Torryburn, and enters the city of St. John at the head of Courtenay bay, a distance from Fredericton of 71 miles, which in final location might be slightly reduced and make the total distance from Grand Falls to St. John, 207 miles, the shortest possible route for a railway line that can be got for a continuous low grade between Grand Falls and the city of St. John.
Then he says:
On the division of this line between Fredericton and St. John, at no point has it been found necessary to rise with a grade to so great an elevation as 100 feet above the sea level in the distance of 71 miles, so that the question of grades here does not seriously affect the cost.
I may say that the line by way of Westfield would -be 85 miles from Fredericton to

St. John or 14 miles longer than the line which the engineer of the provincial government favours. In closing the report Mr. Maxwell says:
Section 37 of the Act authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council in case of the construction of this road either under part 2 or part 3 to make provision for running rights over the same or any part thereof, for any through line of railway making connection with the port of St. John or the port of L'Etang, St. Andrews or other port in the county of Charlotte.
Let my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) listen to these words of the chief engineer appointed by his friends the government of New Brunswick to make this survey:
In view of this important provision in the Act it would not be advisable to construct a railway along the valley of the St. John river, and particularly below Woodstock, except as specified in part 2 of the Act

And part 2, as my hon. friend knows, is that which provided for the transcontinental standard.
-as the difference in cost of construction of two lines of railway, one built to the stano ard Transcontinental four-tenths of one per. cent grade and the other built to the standard Intercolonial grade of one per cent, would not be at all proportional to the real value of the respective roads for transportation purposes.
And yet, in the face of the report made by this engineer appointed by the pfio-vincial government, my hon. friend sa^s that because we are insisting on the same standard as that approved by the provincial government's own engineer, we are, therefore, endeavouring to block this undertaking. The engineer goes on:
A glance at the map of eastern Canada and the northern part of file state of Maine showB that only one divide exists between the St. Lawrence and the St. John rivers, and that when that divide or summit has been once overcome, the way to the seaboard for a railway, so far as grades are concerned, is made easy.
The National Transcontinental railway on its way from Quebec city to Moncton has already surmounted this St. Lawrence divide and has entered the watershed of the St. John river before reaching the New Brunswick boundary, and continues to follow the same for some miles east of Grand Falls or until it leaves it and climbs over into the watershed of the Miramichi river by what is known as the pusher grade.
The importance, therefore, of the St. John valley as a road for a great highway cannot be over-estimated, and the proposition to build a railway along it is not merely local, but national in both scope and character, and the time is now within reasonable distance when more than one transcontinental railway entering this valley, either by the National road now building, or by what may be a Mr. PTJGSLEY
shorter route across the state of Maine and making an ocean terminus at St. John, must of necessity traverse some portion of the line now under consideration, as it is the existence of this peculiar physical feature of this country that makes possible a railway of this character, and wliat must eventually make of the port of St. John one of the few great shipping ports of the world.
I need nothing more than the report of their own engineer in which he advises that no other standard but the standard of the National Transcontinental railway shall be adopted down the valley of the St. John, to entirely justify the position we took when we insisted that the road should be built to thart. high standard so that it would be capable of forming a part of a transcontinental line. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) says that this road cannot be built to the standard of the National Transcontinental railway. Let me call his attention to what Mr. Maxwell says in the summary report published in the ' Gleaner ' which is the accredited organ of ithe provincial government. He says:
Grand Falls via Perry Point to St. John, including all bridges, 210 miles, $9,237,390, equals $43,980 per mile.
Now, what is it going to cost to build from Andover to St. John, not up to this standard, but up to the standard of the Intercolonial? He says:
Andover village via Centreville, Lakeville, Woodstock, Fredericton, Gagetown and Perry Point to St. John, 185 miles (Intercolonial grade), approximate, including all bridges, $7,467,319, equals $40,370 per mile.
Therefore, the only difference per mile of getting a road all the way from the point of connection with the Transcontinental line at Grand Falls down ito the port of St. John, by way of Perry Point, including the bridge across the St. John, another across the Belisle. and another across the Kenne-becasis at Perry Point; the difference between this road built up to that standard, except for.a short distance up in Victoria county, and a road* built according to the inferior standard is only $3,600 per mile. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if in view_ of what their own engineer says, and in view of the fact that there is only a comparatively small difference in cost, whether or not this government has been wise in insisting upon the road being built up to the standard of the Transcontinental railway? My hon. friend refers to an offer made in 1907 to guarantee the bonds for $15,000 per mile. At that time when I was premier of the province we insisted upon a road which would be first-class and capable of forming a part of a trunk line, but the province to-day has agreed to guarantee bonds for $10,000 per mile more than we agreed to guarantee then and

with that guarantee of $25,000 per mile, and with the Dominion subsidy of $6,400 per mile I say that the people of New Brunswick are entitled to more than a second-class road; they are entitled to a road of a high standard, a road which would be capable of forming part of a transcontinental system. But, we have something more definite than that before the people of New Brunswick. We have a proposition made in clear and express terms by Mr. Thomas Malcolm, on behalf of the Quebec & New Brunswick Railway Company, to enter into a contract with the provincial government provided they will guarantee the bonds as each ten miles are completed. He asks nothing beforehand; he does not ask onq dollar from the provincial government until he has built the road section by section; he does not ask for progress estimates in respect of each section, but he is willing to wait until each section of ten miles is fully completed and its proper proportion of rolling stock installed before he will ask the provincial government to guarantee one cent of the bonds that the legislature has authorized them to guarantee. He offers them to build and equip this road for the guarantee of $25,000 per mile with the addition of the Dominion subsidy of $6,400. My hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) says he does not believe that is a sincere offer. And why does he say so? He says, that Mr. Malcolm should have waited until the provincial government proclaimed the Act. Well, I am unable to see that there is any reason in that, because the Act is upon the statute-books for any one to read, and Mr. Malcolm had the right to presume that when the survey was completed the Act would be proclaimed. Anyhow, the proclamation of the Act would not alter 'its language. But, says the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) Mr. Malcolm did not wait to see the surveys and the reports. Well, I have it from Mr. Malcolm that not only himself but the chief engineer of the International railway went over the St. John Valley route, and an experienced railroad man can tell with reasonable certainty what a line of road would cost. We find that Mackenzie & Mann simply made a flying survey in 1907 and their estimate of cost is substantially the estimate that Mr. Maxwell, the engineer of the provincial government, made after a most careful examination of the route.
My hon. friend says there is another reason, that is, that the offer of Mr. Malcolm was circulated in the province of New Brunswick, and was read publicly by Mr. Tweeddale, the member for the county of Victoria, which he says shows that the offer was not bona fide. Mr. Malcolm has explained that that letter was in no sense private, but that it was a public offer, which could have been and should have
been brought down to the legislature; which the provincial government had no right to conceal from the legislature. That offer was dated the 25th of February, and it was not until three weeks later, or more, that Mr. Tweeddale read a copy of it in the House. Mr. Malcolm has explained how Mr. Tweeddale came to get it. There is an application now pending before thp Railway Committee of this parliament to amend the charter of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company. That Bill is in the hands of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), and Mr. Malcolm thought it would be desirable to show to the committee as a reason for getting the time extended, that the company was prepared to build the St. John Valley road, and he sent a copy of the letter to the hon. member for Carleton. Now, the hon. member for CaTleton had a perfect right, if he chose, to send a copy of a public letter to any member of the provincial legislature, especially on a subject in which the people of New Brunswick are intensely interested. I-t seems to me that there is nothing in that which sheuld impugn the bona tides of Mr. Malcolm. But "my hon. friend says that the charter of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company was granted in 1900, and nothing has been done upon it. My hon. friend did not tell the House that it was only during this last year, a comparatively few months ago, that Mr. Malcolm acquired a controlling interest in this charter; so he has informed me.


Oswald Smith Crocket: He was a member of the original company, was he not?


William Pugsley: If he was, he was only nominally so.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I may say that he was, and that his associates were the Hon. Senator Costigan, and a clerk in the post office here, Mr. Bertrand.


William Pugsley: At all events, Mr. Malcolm has informed me that he has acquired a controlling interest in the charter. Now, who is Mr. Malcolm? He is a gentleman who has recently constructed, as contractor, the International railway, which is 113 miles in length, extending across the province of New Brunswick from Campbellton at the head of the Bay of Chaleurs to the St. John river at St, Leonards. Everybody who has seen that road will say that it is a first-class road. It is not up to the standard of the Transcontinental railway, but it is, I suppose, up to the standard of the Intercolonial railway.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much did it cost a mile?


William Pugsley: According to the report of the inspecting engineer, it cost $23,737 a mile.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the minister the standard of construction of that railway?


William Pugsley: No, I have not, but I may say that I have been over the road myself, and it is a first-class road in every respect. The highest grade is one and one-half per cent, but that does not occur very often.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I examined the report of the engineer, and also the contract. The maximum grade is 80 feet to the mile, which is more than one and one-half per cent, the minimum curvature is 10 degrees, and the weight of rails 56 pounds to the yard.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. I think the 80 feet to the mile refers to the grade coming out of Campbellton; elsewhere it is not more than one and one-half per cent. The government of New Brunswick has asked the legislature for authority to have a railroad built with Intercolonial grades up the valley of the St. John.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think there must be some mistake about the cost of the International railway, because I find in the preamble of the Act of the New Brunswick legislature it is stated to be $27,339 per mile so that there must have been some misrepresentation at that time or some mistake now on the part of the minister.


William Pugsley: I am glad that my hon. friend has called attention to that. That was the estimate of Mr. Collingwood Schrei-ber, the chief engineer, made practically at the commencement of the construction of the road, and I think it is very creditable to Mr. Malcolm that, through his economy, his great experience as a railway builder and his ability to organize his construction gangs, he actually constructed the road for $4,000 a mile less than the estimate of the chief engineer. Engineers allow for all contingencies, such as accidents, unfavourable weather, strikes, and so forth, and when you get an experienced railway contractor, who has a large and efficient plant, and who knows how to handle his men, it is often possible for him to make a great saving, and bring the actual cost below the estimate of the engineers, Mr. E. V. Johnson, the inspecting engineer, in his report of his final inspection of the International railway, says that ' the road has been completed, the track laid and the road fully ballasted with good gravel throughout,' and that ' all structures are of substantial and permanent character, bridges being steel girders on massive concrete substructure.' Then he says:
I have now to report the line as in excellent shape throughout and completed in accordance with the contracts.


Mr PUGSLEY.: This report is dated the 17th of December, 1910. There is also the report of the chief engineer who also makes the statement that ' the railway is completed in accordance with the contracts, and is in excellent condition throughout. Then, I have been favoured with a copy of the report of a gentleman whose name would carry great weight with the hon. member for York, that is; Mr. P. S. Archibald, formerly chief engineer of the Intercolonial railway, who made an inspection of this road.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does ihe minister agree with me in the weight that should be attached to him?


William Pugsley: Mr. Archibald is an experienced and very reliable engineer, and I would place great reliance on his statement. He speaks of the road as a good road. What did my hon. friend say was the weight of the rails of the International railway ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: The contract specifies 56 pounds to the yard.


William Pugsley: Yes, but he laid a very much heavier rail than the contract called for. Mr. Archibald's report says that they are steel rails, first class, and 67 pounds to the yard. Then my hon. friend says: But these rails are to be 80 pounds to the yard. So they are, but that will only add about $500 or $600 a mile to the cost. It only means a few additional tons per mile, some 18 tons, as between 67-pound and 80-pound rails. If it should fall to the lot of my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) to travel over the International railway he will be astonished at the work done for the money this poad cost, $23,000 per mile. There are rock cuttings, stream diversions by the mile, work of the very hardest character.


Oswald Smith Crocket: You should have given him work on the Transcontinental.


William Pugsley: That may be. Some people work on a railway and make money; others work on it and lose money. A great deal depends on the experience and judgment of the contractor, and I am prepared to say that Mr. Malcolm is as experienced, able and reliable a contractor as is to be. found in the Dominion. He built a portion of the Bangor and Aroostook railway, away in the northern part of the state of Maine, which is a marvellous success. He built the Tem-iscouata railway from Edmundston up to' its point of junction with the Intercolonial. He has done railway building on the Canadian Pacific railway in the west. It would be difficult to find a man with larger experience and better judgment as a contractor. He made an offer to build this road; he knows whether he can build it or not.

and he made a straight business offer. He said to Mr. Hazen in his letter:	If you'
will agree to guarantee the bonds- of the road as each ten miles of it are finished, and as that proportion of the equipment is furnished, and if you will comply with the conditions contained in the resolution now; before the committee, I will undertake the construction of this road and its initial equipment. More than that, I will give you security for the payment of interest upon every bond which you guarantee until the various sections are finished and the operation of the road is taken over by the Intercolonial. That surely is a business-like straight offer; and if the provincial government has any desire of securing the construction of a first class road, such as recommended by its own engineer, and of saving the province from that possibly enormous liability which must be incurred unless they accept this agreement which the Minister of Railways is asking from this House authority to enter into, they will accept Mr. Malcolm's offer, re-! quiring from him, of course, all reasonable! conditions, and all reasonable security.
Then my hon. friend says that the offer cannot be bona fide for another reason. It is impossible for Mr. Malcolm to carry it out. But what does he say to the proposition to build a second class road from Andover to the city of St. John which would cost $40,000 per mile, or $15,000 per mile more than the bond guarantee, with no provision for operation, and without having the government of Canada back of the) company so far as the operation is concerned? Then he asks:	What can there
possibly be in this for a company which would enable it to finance a dollar beyond the Dominion subsidy, and the guarantee? I may say that if part 2 had been passed by the legislature as the provincial government sought at first to have it passed, providing that 40 per cent of the earnings should go to the province, even after the interest on the bonds were paid, there would have been nothing in it for the company. Would you believe it that when they introduced the Bill, with part 2 in it. they provided that before the company would be allowed to enter into a contract, they, must pay the cost of surveying, some $20,000, and give security, and that after the road was built and the government began to operate it, every dollar of this 40 per cent would go into the provincial treasury, and the company would not receive a dollar? My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. CaTvell) knows that my statement is correct. I read the Bill over, and although we were prepared for almost anything on the part of the provincial government in order to prevent the Intercolonial from operating the road, yet we were amazed that any one would have the audacity to submit to
the legislature a proposition of that kind. They asked the company to pay $20,000 cost ofl survey and give security before they could enter into a contract for the con->
struction of the road for which, when it would be operated by the Intercolonial, all the moneys the Intercolonial paid were to go into the purse of the province and the company was never to have the opportunity of getting a single cent. That was changed on the representation of the leader of the opposition who pointed out the utter absurdity and injustice of such a proposal; and now, after the interest on the bonds is paid, whatever surplus there is of the 40 per cent will go into the treasury of the company.	.
Mr. hon. friend asks what that amounts ito. Let me tell him. This road is to traverse a section of country which is more fertile than any traversed by the Intercolonial unless it be some of those valleys like the beautiful Sussex valley and those, magnificent marshes up in the . county of Westmorland and some other parts of New Brunswick. It will traverse a country settled for a hundred years <by thrifty, industrious farmers, with a fertile soil capable of producing many hundredfold beyond what it produces to-day. In my opinion, in the course of a very few years the earnings of that road ought to be as great at all events as those of the Intercolonial. I look forward to a time in the not very distant future when trains of the Grand Trunk Pacific destined for the port of St. John will leave the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific at Grand Falls and come down the valley of the St. John to the terminus to be built at Courtenay bay. Or the road will cross the river at a place called Evan-dale and go down to St. John by Kingston and join the Grand Trunk Railway by a branch from Chipman at 23 miles from St. John, and utilize that part^ in connection with the Transcontinental. 'Does my hon. friend know what the gross earnings of the Intercolonial were to the 31st of March, 1910. They were $6,220 per mile. If, in the course of a few years, the gross earnings of the St. John Valley line reach this sum, the 40 per cent which will be paid over to the province will equal $2,488 per mile. After paying the $1,000 per year interest on the hond guarantee, that will leave a surplus of $1,488 per mile to the company. In other words, the 40 per cent of the gross earnings would pay the four per cent on $60,000 per mile, or on $35,000 per mile over and beyond the interest on the bonds guaranteed by the government. In view of the fact that the Intercolonial will operate this road section by section as completed, I know of no better proposition for capitalists. I do not wonder that Mr. Malcolm and his associates should be willing to risk their money; I do not won-

der that the contractor should be willing to risk his plant and services in order to secure the construction of this road and the benefit which will come to this company in the years to come as the result of this government entering into this long lease for the operation of this road on those favourable terms. Remember that the 40 per cent on the gross earnings is not limited to five, ten or twenty years, but is to last for the long term of 99 years.
No matter how large the earnings may be, during the whole of that period of ninety-nine years, the government is obliged to pay to this company, and the province of New Brunswick, this magnificent percentage of forty per cent on the gross earnings. The company will not spend a dollar upon repairs, to renew the rolling stock, provide new locomotives and cars as they are required, and all the time the company will receive this forty per cent upon the gross earnings. Out of that it will pay $1,000 a mile, leaving whatever surplus there may be towards paying dividends upon any additional securities the company may issue.
Now. I apologize for taking so much of the time of the House. I have done it, as I have said, because of the position taken by certain gentlemen in this matter. This government has gone great lengths, lengths for which there is no precedent so far as this government is concerned, to secure the construction of this road, both by the subsidy of $6,400 a mile, and by the agreement to operate and pay this large percentage of the gross earnings. I should have thought that, instead of being criticised, we should have been thanked by every man who desires to see this important enterprise undertaken. The attempt has been made to make us appear the enemies of the road, because we have insisted upon this high standard. It is a matter of the greatest possible gratification to me that, out of the mouth of the very man, who, of all others, is qualified to speak, and does speak, for the provincial government, our action is justified, he haVing reported that it would not be advisable to build a railway down the valley of the St. John river upon any other standard than the one which we have chosen and insisted upon, and that is the standard of the Transcontinental railway in New Brunswick.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It is not my intention to follow and reply to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) in all the various deviations he has made in discussing the subject before you, Mr. Chairman. He has discussed many things, but I notice that he has had very little to say regarding the amendment before the committee. So far as the [hon. gentdeman has; attempted to show the great need of this railway to the people of St. John, and has spoken in admiring terms of the great fertility and the Mr. PUGSTEW
beauty of that country and its great adaptability for farming and fruit growing, I endorse all he has said, and think with him that it is high time that these people should be supplied with something like proper railway facilities. At present, they have no railway facilities whatever; practically the only transportation they get is in the summer time by means of the St. John river. The question before you has been dealt with quite fully from the point of view of the amendment iby my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket), and it will not be necessary for me to go over the ground he has so well covered. But the fact is, leaving to one side the legal technicalities and the verbiage thrown around the case this evening, the question simply comes down to this:	Will the government equip this
road with rolling stock or will it not? The Minister of Public Works, in speaking of the initiatory movement in this matter, spoke of the visit of the delegation from New Brunswick to Ottawa and their seeing the government. He stated that a definite proposition had not been made. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) said that the Prime Minister could not possibly have stated) that it was a definite proposition that they had before them. My hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) stated that he had certainly seen such a report of the remarks of the Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman was entirely right. I have here the report of the statement of the Prime Minister, and I will read it to show that the statement of the Minister of Public Works, like so many of his statements, was not so entirely surrounded as it should have been with that necessary element which we all desire to see in the case in statements made in this House. This is how the Prime Minister is reported in the ' Daily Telegraph ' of St. John, in its issue of April 17. 1909:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier made the reply for the government. He declared emphatically that he was in favour of the construction of a line of railway down the valley of the St. John which he knew as one of the most fertile and most productive valleys of Canada which stood in need of a railway. He declared that the government of which he was the head favoured the construction of railways wherever they were needed in Canada. He thought there was no need for him to argue that point, as the government had shown its policy by the appropriation of generous grants of money for railway building.
He was glad to be able to say that the Dominion government had failed to recognize the claims of the St. John Valley railway, which the delegates were now urging, and that the evidence was that the government last year had placed in the list of railway subsidies provision for a double subsidy for any line of railway which might be built down the valley of the St. John. That subsidy wculd stand and would be given as aid when the line was built. The delegation now came

with a further proposal, that on the province guaranteeing bonds of tihe company which was to build the road, the government should have it operated by the Intercolonial and turn over to the company forty per cent of the gross profits. Sir Wilfrid said that was a proposal of a definite kind which would have to be carefully considered.
This is exactly what my hon. friend from York said-that the Prime Minister had stated that this was a definite proposition that was made.


William Pugsley: It is a little different-
' a proposal of a definite kind.1


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is not that a ' definite
proposal '?


William Pugsley: It does not say a word about the details, the specifications, standard or anything.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If the minister can see any real difference between the two statements, he can see more in it than I can.
It might be found on consideration that it was the best arrangement or it might be found that there could be a better arrangement . . .
But there is the fact, the Prime Minister received this delegation here, heard their, proposal, assented to it, and received it as a definite proposal on behalf of the provincial government. When the Minister of Public Works made public his ultimatum I can assure you that the people of New Brunswick looked upon it a>s a severe backset to any hopes they might have had of getting that railway built. They looked upon it then and look upon it now as evidence that so far from helping this thing along the minister was doing his best to prevent its accomplishment. He insisted on a standard which was not carried out even upon the National Transcontinental going through the province of New Brunswick. He insisted on a four-tenth per cent grade, which is a higher standard than the National Transcontinental has going through New Brunswick. Yet this was a railway which was to be made part of the Intercolonial, which does not approach that standard, but has grades of 1 per cent and even li per cent on parts of its line. It looks as if the minister had tried to prevent this thing going through, that he insisted on such a high grade for this railway that it became almost impossible to hope for its construction. The matter is well understood in New Brunswick. I saw the other day in the public press a notice of a meeting at Gage-town, in Queens county, on February 27, at which the following resolution was adopted:
First, resolved that the meeting express their gratification and hearty concurrence in the legislation passed last winter providing for the guarantee of bonds to the extent of $25,000 per mile in aid of the construction of
the St. John Valley railway, and express their preference to have the said railway operated by steam and under the management of the Intercolonial railway if possible. If not, then by some substantial railway company, with transcontinental connections.
Second, that the Bill introduced in the federal parliament by the Minister of Railways may be so amended as to provide and guarantee that the Intercolonial railway management will take the road over when completed for the running of trains, and put on their own rolling stock for all purposes required.
Third, that should the local government fail to find a company willing to construct the said railway aided by the bond guarantee and Dominion subsidy, then we would heartily approve of them undertaking the construction of the said railway and completing it ready for the running of trains, beginning its construction and securing its completion within reasonable time.
Fourth, that as citizens of the St. John Valley we desire again to express how keenly we feel the want of transportation facilities, and that we are relying on the good offices of both the provincial and Dominion governments in their united and hearty co-operation to secure to us this much-needed railway.
So far as this meeting is concerned, its views are plainly expressed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That meeting wanted Intercolonial railway operation.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The resolution speaks for itself. This government has made a proposal to build a railway to Hudson bay, and I presume that road will be constructed at the expense of the Dominion. The Dominion government is a wealthy government. New Brunswick is a small province, as we all know, and the provincial government are very much put to it to find means enough to carry on the ordinary business of a province. The Dominion government will doubtless construct the Hudson Bay ! railway. The province of New Brunswick has given a larger subsidy than it has ever given towards any public undertaking of this kind. The minister has *spoken of the great feritility and value of the valley of the River St. John. It has always suffered from want of railway facili-' ties. It would appear to me that it should be the endeavour of this government to assist the province in every shape and form in the laudable desire it has to build this railway and give this most fertile province of New Brunswick something like the railway facilities to which it is entitled. That is all that the people tljere are asking. The people of New Brunswick are taking a tremendous load upon themselves in offering $25,000 a mile to build this line, and all this amendment asks is a slight change whereby there will be placed in this Act Ihe word * equipment,' so as to carry out the intention of the government of New Brunswick. I think the minister would be

doing the right thing towards the province which he especially represents if he would accept the amendment which has been offered by my hon. friend from York, and arrange it in such a way as that the section will read as amended. It appears to me that we would be doing something which he, as a representative of New Brunswick, ought to be glad to do, and which would certainly facilitate this matter by making the proposal acceptable to the people of New Brunswick. It would show that this government were trying to help this project along all they possibly could. I certainly have very much pleasure in seconding the amendment which my hon. friend on my left (Mr. Crocket) has moved.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In view of the very able and lucid statement of this proposed railway legislation by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), it will only be necessary for me to spend a very few moments indeed in discussing it. I offer no apology for speaking on this question, because, perhaps, I have been more intimately connected with every move concerning this matter made during the last two years than any other hon. member of the House. I know what is required perhaps more intimately than any other man except possibly the minister himself. I have taken a great interest in it because the road, when constructed, will pass through my country for a distance of about fifty miles, and, having my ideas with regard to the work not only in my constituency but in six or seven other constituencies in New Brunswick, I feel its importance. I am fully justified in doing every thing which reasonably can be done in order to secure the construction of this great work. I shall not weary the House with an historical review of this question, and I am only going to refer to one thing. About two years ago now, a number of meetings were held in different parts of the province to talk the railway up and down the river St. John. This railway has been discussed and talked of and legislated upon for at least 25 years to my own recollection, and I do not know how far back of that. On two occasions work has actually commenced. I think that about 20 years ago work was commenced at Fredericton and five or six miles were graded. Through failure to make the necessary financial arrangements they were unable to proceed. About fifteen years ago another company was organized, and, they commenced construction near Woodstock, they spent about $50,000 at different places and failed there also. The present agitation was started two years ago. A delegation from counties all along the river waited upon Hon. Mr. Hazen at Fredericton on the day before the legislature met in 1909. The night before they met the premier, I received a telegram from a Mr. DANIEL.
gentleman at Woodstock telling me that the premier was going to ask them to go to Ottawa and see what could be done there I wired back telling him what had been done; I told him that a subsidy had been voted during the previous year for a road all the way from Grand Falls to St. John and I cited to him the statute where it would be found. Next day when they met the premier he asked them to give him a fortnight he said: if you will get the federal government to agree to operate this road when constructed, and pay 40 per cent of the gross earnings back to the company or the governpient we will guarantee the bonds to the extent of $25,000 a mile. The result of the proposition was the monster delegation of thirty or forty people from all parts of the country which has been referred to by my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) and my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel). Very shortly after the delegation went away the Conservative papers of New Brunswick commenced to harp upon the statement that the premier told the delegation that they had made a definite proposition. I never could understand the object for doing so, I never could see why there was so much importance attached to it. You will find that statement in the letter written by Premier Hazen to Mr. Chestnut. The premier said it was a definite proposition. I was present at the meeting, and I know the whole transaction. Tins' delegation met in a room down in the Russell House, about half past nine in the morning, I was sent for, and when I got down there they were all sitting around the room, and they were having a good straight fight among themselves.


George Perry Graham: New Brunswicker like?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: New Brunswicker like. The whole delegation, with the exception of Hon. Mr. Flemming, who was representing the local government, wanted to ask the government to operate this road from Grand Falls to St. John. The Hon. Mr. Flemming refused to do it, and would not go north from a place called Centreville in Carle-ton because he said it was unfair to compete with the existing line of the Canadian Pacific Tailway, and he would never agree to it unless he could not help it. The situation was such that it -was apparent nothing would be done, and Mr. Flemming immediately telegraphed to Mr. Hazen at Fredericton and got a reply in which he consented to the proposition being made. That is all that took place, the only thing we discussed and the only proposition put before the government was whether or not they would agree to operate the road from Grand Falls to St. John and pay to the government of New Brunswick or the company forty per cent of the gross earnings, operating the road as part of the Intercolonial railway,

We went before the government with that proposition, and the answer was given, I think, almost word for word as read by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) a few minutes ago from the 'St. John Telegraph.' If he can get any comfort out of it, all right, I find no fault. There could have been no kind of definite proposition except this one as to whether this government would operate the road and pay forty per cent of the gross earnings. Nothing was said about grades, guarantees, steel bridges or iron.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Nothing was asked.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It never got to the point where it could he asked. It would not fce possible to make a definite proposition about the road, .and the Minister of Railways objected because there was not something more definite.


Oswald Smith Crocket: He certainly did not make that objection to the delegation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He certainly did.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I was there and my recollection is that nothing of the kind' took place.


George Perry Graham: I made the objection, and I was not very popular for doing so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was present too, and I do not believe the premier said what my hen. friend from York says he did.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The ' Telegraph ' says he did.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is not always right. However, a good many more important things have happened since then. The legislature was in session and a delegation of 25 or 30 of the most determined men I ever saw went to Fredericton and they went so far as to call on the provincial secretary to resign his seat if the government did not put the legislation through that year, and they got that promise, but two days afterwards the legislature prorogued, and there was no Act passed. Then some funny things commenced, and we began to get letters from Mr. Hazen, not through the Minister of Railways, and not through the premier, but through Mr. Chestnut the president of the railway company, which had been created by the legislature for the purpose of building the road.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And the chairman of the delegation that waited on the government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No doubt, and a perfectly reliable gentleman he is, and a man who is as anxious to have this road built as the Minister of Public Works or myself, and a good deal more anxious than the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel).


Oswald Smith Crocket: You want to monopolize all the sincerity in the province.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, he did not. My recollection is that the Minister of Public Works stated that until Mr. Hazen was prepared to go into details and state what kind of grades and curvatures he would provide for, there was no necessity for an interview. He invited Mr. H-azen to give something more definite, but Mr. Hazen has never done so. The next step was a letter written by the Minister of Public Works telling Mr. Hazen through Mr. Chestnut that if he thought the standard was too high, he ought to ask the legislature to give him the power to decide on these details, hut in the face of that he deliberately placed on the statute-books of New Brunswick, chapter 6 of the Acts of 1910, which not only does not give him the right to have this road built, and operated by the Intercolonial railway, but actually prohibits him' from doing it. We have section after section which binds Mr. Hazen hand and foot and makes it impossible for him to sign an agreement that can be worked out. And now, my hon. friend's friends in the province of New Brunswick have the effrontery to advertise in every Tory newspaper and on every platform in the province that the Minister of Public Works and myself have 'been deliberately planning and scheming to prevent the construction of this road. A year ago, when at Woodstock, I read Sir Wilfrid Laurier's letter agreeing to operate this road as part of the Intercolonial, and stated that I knew a man who would build the road for the assistance was offered, I was laughed at by every Tory newspaper in New Brunswick. But to-night 1 repeat the statement that the road can be and will be built unless Mr. Hazen and the Tory party of New Brunswick prevent it from being built, and it will be built and operated by the Intercolonial railway, and the people of that section will be getting the railway facilities they have been praying for since I was a boy. In order to show how completely Mr. Hazen and the Tory party of New Brunswick have prevent-


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the hon. member any doubt but that the subsidy of $6,400 per mile would be payable in this case.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not a particle. But owing to the manner in which Mr. Hazen has tied himself down he cannot sign the contract until the legislation is changed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: You are getting very technical.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and I can tell you that if ever there was a piece of technical legislation put through any parliament it was the legislation regarding this railway which was put through the legislature of New Brunswick, because everything was done that human ingenuity could do in Mr. CARVELL.
order to try and prevent having this railroad built and operated as part of the Intercolonial railway. When they made that proposition two years ago, they had no idea that this government would accept it, and there was nobody more surprised than the Tory party of New Brunswick when the Prime Minister's letter was read a year ago, and from that day to this they have never ceased to try to concoct some scheme to make it impossible to carry it out, and to enable them to build a road not up to- the standard of the Transcontinental or even of the Intercolonial railway, tout simply a cheap branch line to be controlled and operated by the Canadian Pacific railway. That is the whole transaction. Why, when we came to Ottawa two years ago to meet the government, the Hon. Mr. Flemming came along, and his whole fight was against building a road through the centre because it would compete with the Canadian Pacific railway. He wired to Mr. Hazen to get his consent. The night before, this same Mr. Flemming travelled all the way from Fredericton to Montreal in a private car of Sir William Van Horne. I do not say that Sir William Van Horne influenced him, but when he got to Ottawa, he was 'the most rabid Canadian Pacific railway man I ever met, and he has continued to be so down to the present time, and that is really at the bottom of the whole transaction. I do not blame the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; they are only following a good business proposition. I blame my hon. friend and his friends in the province of New Brunswick for being willing to barter away the rights of the people of that province in order to give this monstrous, corporation a grasp on that part of the province for all time to come. The people of New Brunswick blame them too, and they will find that the people are not half as innocent or as ignorant as my hon. friend and his friends think they are. That is all I have to say about the historic part oi this matter. My hon. friend wants this committee to adopt an amendment of his. I have applied that amendment to the resolution before the committee, and I want to read it as it would appear if his amendment were adopted. The whole trouble with hon. gentlemen opposite seems to be over the equipment. The morning after the Minister of Railways tabled his notice of motion about a month ago, the St. John 'Standard,' the leading Tory organ of the province, and the Fredericton ' Gleaner,' the next leading Tory organ, came out with identical editorials on this question, and the gravamen of their charge was that the federal government were trying to prevent the construction of this road on account of the equipment, When I read these two articles I could not understand what they meant, and I at once went to the laws which the

Tory government themselves passed, and I found that in -section 10 they deliberately provide:
Before any company's bonds shall be guaranteed, the company shall provide, in a manner satisfactory to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by a deposit in money or other sufficient security, or of a deposit of part money and part security, in addition to such mortgage, for the payment of interest on such bonds during the construction of the said line of railway, and until the same shall have been fully completed and provided with the initial equipment passed and approved by the government engineer.
I also find that by sections 11 and 16 they provided for equipment; and this thing has been going on ever since in the province of New Brunswick. I am surprised' that -my hon. friends bring it up here in view of what has taken place in the last fortnight. Now, I will read the. enacting part of this resolution, with the amendment as proposed:
Now, therefore, it is expedient that His Excellency the Governor in Council be authorized to enter into a contract with any such railroad company and the government of the province of New Brunswick as aforesaid, for the leasing of the said line of railway when completed, with its appurtenances and rolling stock, and for the operation, equipment, maintenance, upkeep and repair by the said government of Canada, as a part of the government railway system of Canada, for a period of ninety-nine years, and for the payment by the government of Canada to the said province of New Brunswick, or the said company, each year during the said term of ninety-nine years, of the forty per centum per annum of the gross earnings of the said railway, as or in the nature of rental therefor.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does not that conform precisely with the terms of section 11?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it does not.


Robert Laird Borden: In what respect does it not?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If you make this amendment, then you will be absolutely out of court, because section 10 says that until the road is equipped the government cannot guarantee.


Robert Laird Borden: In what respect does this not conform to section 11?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will tell my hon. friend frankly that I have not read section 11 very carefully.


Robert Laird Borden: "I have.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will read section 11 :
No such agreement shall be entered into with any company or corporation for the construction of the said line of railway or for the guaranteeing of the said bonds, and no such bonds or debentures shall be guaranteed unless and until the parliament of Canada
shall enact legislation authorizing the granting of a subsidy in aid of the construction of the said railway, to the amount of not less than $6,400 per mile, and authorizing the entering, by the said government, of Canada, into an agreement with such company or corporation and with the government ef New Brunswick aforesaid, for the leasing of the said line of railway when completed with its appurtenances and rolling stock, and for the operation, equipment, maintenance, upkeep and repair by said government of Canada, as part of the government railway system of Canada, for a period of ninety-nine years, and foi the payment by the government of Canada to the said province of Neiv Brunswick or_ government thereof, each year during the said term of ninety-nine years of forty per centum per annum of the gross earnings of the said railway as or in the nature of rental therefor.
Whether the amendment complies with section 11 or not does not make any difference, because section 10 provides that there must be equipment, and without equipment Mr. Hazen cannot sign the contract.


Robert Laird Borden: Then the contention of the hon. gentleman, as I understand it, is that the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for York is perfectly consistent with section 11, but section 11 is not consistent with section 10?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That, I think, is pretty logical, and that is only one of the circumstances by which Mr. Hazen and the Conservative party have tried to prevent themselves from being in a position to sign the contract. If there is no equipment, how is there going to be any rolling stock to_be leased to the government, for which section 11 provides? My hon. friend from York this afternoon said: Oh, there will be some rolling stock. If this road is constructed as all other roads are, by contractors, there would not be a wheel of rolling stock when the road is completed. What is the use of all this discussion about rolling stock? My hon. friends ignore the fact that a competent railway man goes to the province of New Brunswick and agrees to build this road and put on the rolling stock. There is nobody asking for this amendment. This parliament will be in session probably two months longer; the legislature of New Brunswick is in session; if Mr. Hazen thinks that is vital to the construction of this road, let him change jiis legislation and put the burden on us to see if we will not before we get through.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does my hon. friend object to this government providing the initial equipment?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This government has
nothing to do with it. It is a company which is going to build the railway.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Under an agreement on the part of the company that this government is to take it over.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That has nothing to do with it. The hon. gentleman spoke about making the poor government of New Brunswick provide the rolling stock, and he dilated on -the poverty of that government and the richness of this.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I do not remember any remark of that kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Every other hon. member does. The poor government of New Brunswick, he said, were forced to provide the rolling stock. But who asked that government to do it? They put it in their own Acts that the company should provide the rolling stock. Take the letter, it has been almost insinuated that something unprofessional, something unfair has taken place, that I gave away something to the leader of the opposition in -the New Brunswick legislature. I have no hesitation in telling the whole story. For three or four weeks there has been a notice on the Order Paper that application was to be made by the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company for a renewal of a charter, and that order stands in my name. I noticed frequently two of my hon. friends opposite holding down the front bench in the Railway Committee and wondered what was troubling them because as a rule they do not bother that committee very much. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) asked me when this Bill was coming up, and I said in the ordinary course. Not long afterwards the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) asked me to name a day and he said that he had some amendment to propose. I immediately wired Mr. Malcolm that some of our friends opposite from New Brunswick were opposing the Bill for some reason or other. I met him in Montreal and he gave me this letter, marked copy, and signed by himself, and he told me he had submitted it to Mr. Hazen, and that he had agreed to enter into a contract according to the terms of the resolution of the Minister of Railways now under discussion. I wanted an opportunity to make this letter public before the Railway Committee, and I notified the leader of the opposition in New Brunswick to get copies of all documents in connection with that matter. I did not give a copy of this letter as my object was first to get all the information possible from the New Brunswick government about this proposition. Notice was given in -the local house on the 2nd of March, but the First Minister there gave an evasive answer, stated that there was a good deal of correspondence had with different people, and promised to bring down the papers at some future time. About a week ago I went Mr. CARVELL.
home and gave a copy of the letter to some of the prominent Tories in Woodstock and
I	said to them: That is what your government has to meet, and I want to know what it is going to do about it. A copy of that letter was sent to Mr. Hazen on a Saturday and on Tuesday the leader of the opposition moved that it be brought down. Not receiving the letter, on Wednesday night he made it public. I take full responsibility for its publication. It was not marked ' private


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. Hazen says it was.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. gentleman will produce that letter, he will find it is not marked private.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I read a letter from Mr. Malcolm this afternoon in reply to a letter from Mr. Hazen in which Mr. Malcolm referred to the fact that this letter was marked ' private.'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend can take what comfort he likes from that. I am giving him the facts, and if he does not accept my version let him produce the letter to Mr. Hazen. There is no reason why my hon. friend should make any trouble in this House or bother his head at all about this matter because this equipment is not coming out of the poor government of New Brunswick or the federal government but out of the contractor or the company. If Mr. Malcolm is willing to put up the money for the equipment, that is his affair. I do not think the people of New Brunswick will lose much sleep or trouble themselves much about who provides the equipment so long as the equipment is provided and the road operated. Therefore I can see no reason why we should adopt this amendment. All the resolution provides is that this government shall have the right to enter into a contract to operate the road for a period of 99 years, when completed and equipped with the initial rolling stock. It is only a question whether parliament will give the Minister of Railways that power or not. If it does, this government will be in a position to carry out the very thing they have been asked to do. In every letter, every resolution, every discussion from beginning to end, the New Brunswick government have asked the company or somebody else to provide the rolling -stock. If my hon. friends can induce the government of New Brunswick to change their legislation calling on the company to provide rolling stock, we will be in a position to meet them. My hon. friend had better have legislation introduced into the New Brunswick legislature amending the specifications and changing section 16 and section
II	about the subsidy.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Are not those the specifications laid down by the Minister of Public Works and approved by the First Minister?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They follow very closely the specifications set forth in the letter of the Minister of Public Works. But a year ago my hon. friends knew that the Minister of Public Works was prepared to reduce those specifications if it was thought necessary. But they hid that letter away and did not make it public, and it never was known until the Minister of Public Works made it known here to-night. It will be a surprise to the people of New Brunswick to learn the true facts.
My hon. friends opposite complain that the standard is too high. All right we will change the specifications. All we want is to have the road built and then have it operated by the Intercolonial, and we are passing legislation to have that brought into effect. It is then for the government of Mr. Hazen to say whether they will change _ their legislation and put themselves in a position to meet us and have the road constructed. If they will change that legislation and comply with this resolution, if they will guarantee those bonds and sign the contract, the road will be in construction inside of a month and built inside of two years.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall not go into the historical matter on which my hon friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) have spoken, though the latter promised he would not indulge in anything of the kind. I am afraid, however, that he lapsed very far from his pledge before he got through. He spoke of the shackles imposed by the government of New Brunswick. Well, the only shackles they imposed were due to the fact that they accepted literally the proposition of the Minister of Public Works and the right hon. the First Minister and put that in the form of a statute. They simply accepted the offer made by this government in the very terms in which that offer was made. I do not propose to deal with the question of this private letter. Mr. Hazen and the gentleman who wrote it say it was private. The Minister of Public Works and the hon. member for Carleton say they know better and that it was not. We will let that matter stand as it is. Nor will I deal with the very interesting distinction made by the Minister of Public Works between a ' definite proposal ' and a ' proposal of a definite kind.' We will leave that as it is.


William Pugsley: Like Sir Charles Tup-per's statement that he could net understand the man who said he cou.d not understand the difference between 'an offer of 180
unrestricted reciprocity ' and ' unrestricted offer: of reciprocity.'


Robert Laird Borden: That is much more clear that the distinction the minister is trying to make to-night.


William Pugsley: It always puzzles me.


Oswald Smith Crocket: On which side was the minister then?


William Pugsley: On the right side.


Robert Laird Borden: Let us come down to the question really before us. The Minister of Public Works has told us ot the fertility of the St. John valley and how important it is that it should be afforded the railway communication which it is due. We all agree to that. We all agree that the progress and development of the St. John valley will be very greatly enhanced by the carrying out of the proposal which is made a matter of controversy tonight. But it is a remarkable thing, it seems to me, that the Minister of Public Works should assure us that the production of that valley would be increased not merely a hundred fold but many hundred fold by the construction of this railway, and yet that he should balk so much at an expenditure of $250,000 for the provision of rolling stock. And it is a remarkable thing that my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) should agree entirely with the very proper view of the Minister of Public Works with respect to the St. John valley, and yet should regard adherence .to the particular form of legislation in vogue in this parliament as of much more importance than the construction of that railway. For that is the argument he seriously put forward-I am assuming that he put it forward seribusly. The government of New Brunswick, he says, have rendered it impossible that the railway should be constructed, because, forsooth, we have been accustomed to enact grants of subsidies in a particular form in this parliament. I think he will see, on reflection, that that is not a very weighty argument.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax), propose that this parliament should pass a special Act providing a subsidy of $6,400 a mile for this railway regardless of the cost of construction?


Robert Laird Borden: I say that if the road is of the importance attached to it by the Minister of Public Works and the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., parliament may well do that and nobody would be much hurt by it. The hon. member for Carleton himself has said that the road would cost so much that the subsidy to be paid would be $6,400 per mile. Then he calls attention to the nature of the New Brunswick statute which requires a subsidy



to the amount of not less than $6,400 a mile, and says, because some technical and more or less frivolous distinction might be drawn, by reason of the very wording of this section, this road is to remain in abeyance forever.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is what will happen.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what will happen-assuming the hon. gentleman's argument to be correct-unless this parliament is willing to put legislation on the statute-book that will provide $6,400 a mile. Then, so far as I am concerned, 1 am ready and willing to support legislation of that kind. But I may sav, if I am to judge by the utterances of the hon. member for Carleton and the Minister of Public Works, they are not willing to go that far for the purpose of bringing about the construction of this railway in the St. John valley. However, the hon. member, perhaps, can explain himself if he likes in the very peculiar and difficult situation in which he finds himself by reason of his somewhat unguarded utterances in that respect.
But, let us come to the real question. The real question, as my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) put it very tersely and forcibly is this: Is the government of Canada prepared to spend $250,000, the amount named by the Minister of Railways and Canals, in providinig rolling stock for this railway? It has been pointed out that if you follow the analogy of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the government of Canada should provide the rolling stock for this road. No attempt to meet that argument has been made except by declamation and the somewhat heated and excited utterances of the Minister of Public Works and the member for Carleton. But, apart from that, let us come down to the real aspect of the situation created by the proposal of my hon. friend from York that these resolutions should be amended. I say that the recital contained in the resolution submitted to this committee is an incorrect recital, and I challenge contradiction of that statement. It correctly recites the New Brunswick legislation with the exception of one word, and it leaves out that word 'equipment.' Then, when you come to the enacting part of it, you will find in ' Hansard ' to-morrow that the resolution as proposed to be amended by my hon. friend from York is in exact accordance with the New Brunswick legislation, and that the legislation proposed by the Minister of Railways and Canals is not in accord with that legislation. I make that statement and challenge contradiction, for I have compared the two very carefully. I followed the hon. member for Carleton as closely as I could- not to embarrass him, but that I might un-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)
derstand his argument-and, if there is anything in his argument, or in that of the Minister of Railways and Canals, it is that section 10 modifies the construction of section 11, and, therefore, the Minister of Railways and Canals was justified in departing, as undoubtedly he did, from the language of section 11 when he framed his resolution. If there is anything in the long and wearisome argument made on that side with respect to this matter it amounts to that and nothing more. I am open to correction or interruption if any hon. gentleman does not agree with me. Let us see if there is any contradiction or inconsistency between section 10 and section 11 taken in conjunction with other parts of the statute.


William Pugsley: Section 9,


Robert Laird Borden: I have looked at these sections pretty carefully, and I think I understand them as well as one can understand them in the brief time I have been able to spend on them. Section 10 reads:
10. Before any of the company's bonds shall be guaranteed, the company shall provide, in a manner satisfactory to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by a deposit in money or other sufficient security, or of a deposit of part money and part security, in addition to such mortgage, for the payment of interest on such bonds during the construction of the said line of railway, and until the same shall have been fully completed and provided with the initial equipment passed and approved by the government engineer.
Not a word in that inconsistent with section 11 which has been put on 'Hansard' by the hon. member for Carleton. Section 11 is embodied in the terms of this resolution, if the resolution be amended as proposed by my hon. friend from York. What was* the object of section 10? Simply this, that, inasmuch as the 40 per cent could not ba received by the government of New Brunsi wick until after the road had been completed and was earning the revenue, therefore during the intervening period it was required of this company that some provision should be made for the payment of interest. It is absolutely consistent and not in the least conflicting with a word to be found in section 11. What is the general intention of this statute with regard to the equipment? A great deal of light is shed upon it by reference to the concluding words of section 16.
And such contract shall also provide that such railway shall be equipped by the said company or by the government of Canada, with proper and sufficient rolling stock.
What then is the whole scope of the legislation? In the first place, by section 10 provision must be made during the

period antecedent to the operation of the road for the payment of interest upon the bonds guaranteed by the government of New Brunswick. That is plain and simple.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do not sections 10, 11 and 16 provide that before the government of New Brunswick can guarantee bonds rolling stock must be provided by somebody?


Robert Laird Borden: The government of New Brunswick intended that until rolling stock should be provided provision should be made for the interest on those bonds, a most businesslike proposal from every standpoint. After the road should be equipped with rolling stock and should be in operation, then they looked to the revenue derived from the operation of the road for the reimbursement of the interest payable on the bonds, but until that had been accomplished they insisted by section 10 that provision for the payment of that interest should be made. There is nothing in that provision inconsistent with section 11 or section 16.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does not that provide that some one must provide rolling stock?


Robert Laird Borden: Section 16 left it entirely open as to whether the rolling stock should be provided by the company or the government of Canada, as I understand it. Therefore section 11 very properly uses the word rolling stock, because if the rolling stock had been provided by the company the lease must necessarily carry the rolling stock as well. It was possible under the provision of section 16 that the rolling stock under the contract as eventually agreed to would be provided by the company; therefore it was absolutely necessary in section 11 to use the words rolling stock in connection with the lease, because after the company provides the rolling stock it is not only the road but the rolling stock as well that must be leased with it. It seems to me that if you take sections 10, 11 and 16 and construe them in the ordinary commonsense, businesslike meaning of the words, you have not the slightest difficulty from beginning to end. There is not a word in section 10 that conflicts with section 11, there is not a word in section 11 that conflicts with section 16. Because it is open under section 11 to the possibility that the company may provide the rolling stock, therefore you find in section 11 the provision that the road when leased shall carry any rolling stock with it if that rolling stock shall be provided before-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why do my friends object to rolling stock being provided?


Robert Laird Borden: I am discussing the question as to whether the Minister of Railways has properly recited the legis-1804
lation of the province of New Brunswick? It must be apparent to any one that if this proposal is to be carried out it cannot be carried out by provision of one kind in the legislation of New Brunswick and of a different and inconsistent character in the legislation of this parliament. What I am endeavouring to emphasize is that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) makes this resolution thoroughly consistent with the New Brunswick legislation, while the resolution proposed by the Minister of Railways is not consistent with the New Brunswick legislation, for the reasons to which I have alluded, and which were dealt with in detail by the hon. member for York.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend is so anxious to have this portion of the resolution conform with the statute of New Brunswick, why does not the member for York go further and ask to amend the resolution as to the question of standard and specifications?


Robert Laird Borden: Because, as I understand the situation, there is no need-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There must be an
amendment


Oswald Smith Crocket: The New Brunswick
statute specifies the standard as the Minister of Public Works does, the National Transcontinental grade in New Brunswick.	[DOT]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does he not admit that if this legislation goes through as proposed to be amended by himself, it is even then necessary for the legislature of New Brunswick to change their legislation before they are empowered to sign the contract? Why does he not try to make the whole thing harmonize?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not desire that my hon. friend shall interpose with a controversy with the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) who is perfectly well able to take care of himself as my hon. friend knows. I am pointing out to hon. gentlemen opposite, especially to the Prime Minister and the _ Minister of Railways, that their recital is an untrue and incorrect recital. The operative part of their resolution does not follow the operative part of the legislation of New Brunswick, and the road cannot be built unless the legislation of this parliament and the legislation of New Brunswick are made to conform. I challenge the contradiction of the statement that the resolution proposed by the Minister- of Railways and Canals does not conform to the legislation of New Brunswick. Therefore, I send back to hon. gentlemen opposite their own words that their action in this respect may well bear the implication that it is not the bona fide in-

tention of the government of Canada to bring about the completion of this road; otherwise they would see to it that their own legislation is conformable to and consistent with the legislation placed on the statute-book of New Brunswick by (the government of that province for the purpose of bringing about the construction of that road which is a matter of vital interest not only to the valley of the River St. John, but to the entire province of New Brunswick.


George Perry Graham: I might draw attention to the point of order that the hon. gentleman's motion, if it means what he says it does, involves an additional charge on the revenue of Canada. If it does not mean that it would not mean anything. I find that after being pressed pretty hard by the Minister of Public Works, and the member for Carleton, New Brunswick, in trying to meet what I thought was the desire of the people of New Brunswick to help this railway line, I have got into a hornet's nest. I am not so sure I would have done what I did. for I thought I was acting pretty liberally as the head of the Department of Railways, if I had known that two promineid members of the opposition had intended to obstruct this legislation. I expected to have their hearty support, but they have obstructed it at every point, and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has also been drawn into the question. Let me point out one thing.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the Minister of Railways and Canals state that I have been attempting to obstruct the passage of this resolution? I am surprised to hear a statement of that kind coming from a minister of the Crown.


George Perry Graham: I will put it in another way.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have been endeavouring to secure the passage of the resolution in a manner that would bring about the construction of this road and make it conform to the legislation of New Brunswick.


George Perry Graham: I should not use the word 'obstruct'; in place of it I will use the word 'oppose.' We might as well understand that the legislation of New Brunswick from start to finish implies and states in every paragraph relating to it that the company was to provide some rolling stock and equipment. In every paragraph where it is mentioned it states that. My hon. friend says: No, you supply the equipment, and he pretended to state this afternoon what cannot be found in their statute from start to finish. They demand, not this House, not the Minister of Railways, but the provincial government of New Brunswick, in their statute that the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
company getting this contract shall provide the initial equipment. I will take some clauses not yet mentioned to show that the New Brunswick government, in every part of this Act, acted upon that assumption. Take clause 27 if you like:
Before any such guarantee shall be given, the payment of the said bonds and interest thereon, shall he secured by a trust mortgage, made and executed by the said company to a trust company, to he approved of by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and covering all the said line of railway and its appurtenances.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is part 3.
Mr. PUG8LEY. That is the second class.


George Perry Graham: But the same principle applies to both roads, they were to supply the initial eqtdpment at least and the mortgage in either case, either upon this road, or upon the one horse road, as my hon. friend calls it, was to be secured on the lolling stock in accordance with the Act passed by the legislature of New Brunswick. Let me go back a little further and come to clause 16. I agree with the leader of the opposition; I say in this regard that sections 10 and 11 are not consistent one with the other. I agree with the leader of the opposition to the extent that my argument is largely that. I admit further that I take the responsibility, in so far as I have to, for the use of the word 'equipment' not being in the resolution, because we cannot say in one clause that the company shall provide the initial equipment, and in the very next clause that the government shall do it. Let me proceed a little further. Take clause 16. I shall not put it on 'Hansard ' because it has been read. This clause fully accepts the Transcontinental railway standard, practically the standard outlined in the letter of the Minister of Public Works. The government of New Brunswick accepts that standard, and put it in their statute, Upon what ground does my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) ask this House to say that that standard should not be adopted when the government that he speaks for accept it and make it part of their statute?


Oswald Smith Crocket: My amendment does not ask that the standard be changed.


George Perry Graham: No, but the hon. gentleman's argument was devoted for an hour to an attack upon this government for adopting a standard that the government of New Brunswick have accepted and have adopted and put in their statute. Then, the matter of the standard is wiped out; theie is no complaint on that ground.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is because this government insisted upon it.


George Perry Graham: Well, the government oi New Brunswick does not always take the advice of this government. Clause 16 says:

And sucli contract shall also provide that such railway shall be equipped by the said company or by the government of Canada, with proper and sufficient rolling stock.
That is inconsistent with the whole tenor of the statute? Why? The government of Hew Brunswick say first that the 'initial equipment' must be provided by this company. Compare that with the language in clause 10 which I shall read in a moment. Undoubtedly the government of New Brunswick expected that this government, when we came to operate, would supply any ad ditional rolling stock, but to use the word 'equipment' in that regard unqualifiedly was not proper legislation, it was not consistent. and this House should not pass inconsistent legislation merely to make it conform with what we might consider to be inconsistent in some other legislation.
Mr, BORDEN (Halifax). Suppose we assume that my hon. friend's argument as to the meaning of the word 'equipment' in that respect is correct-I do not agree with him in his contention as to that-but if his argument is correct, is not that the best reason why we should insert that word?


George Perry Graham: That is my argument why we should not do so.


Robert Laird Borden: You require the word 'equipment' in the restricted sense to make it conform with the legislation of New Brunswick.


George Perry Graham: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has forgotten or missed the few words with which I introduced my argument on this point.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I have not.


George Perry Graham: My contention is that the legislation of New Brunswick is inconsistent one clause with the other, and we should not make ours wrong because theirs is wrong. In our legislation we are meeting the desires of the New Brunswick legislature because that is what is in every portion of their statute.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister did not get my point.


George Perry Graham: I do not agree at all that we should make our legislation conform with theirs if theirs is wrong, or inconsistent-I do not mean wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: If you purport to recite it you ought to recite it correctly.


George Perry Graham: We are not purporting to recite it; we are purporting to recite the meaning of it. Before I get through I think I will show my hon. friends that we are anxious to meet that situation, so that there will not be the vestige of an excuse for the government of New Brunswick not guaranteeing these bonds and entering into a contract. I have pointed out what I mean about clause 16. Now I will go back to clause 11:
No srrcli agreement shall be entered into with any company or corporation for the construction of the said line of railway or for the guaranteeing of the said bonds, and no such bonds or debentures shall be guaranteed, unless and until the parliament of Canada shall enact legislation authorizing the granting of a subsidy in aid of the construction of the said railway, to the amount of not less than $6,400 per mile, and authorizing the_ entering, by the said government of Canada into an agreement with such company or corporation and with the government of New Brunswick aforesaid, for the leasing of the said line of railway, when completed

Mark the words;
-with its appurtenances and rolling stock.
If this company were not to provide rolling stock why was it put in clause 11 that they must have that rolling stock or the bonds would not be guaranteed? That meant that the company must first furnish the initial rolling stock. That is what they say in section 10 and that is what was in their mind. They thought that as the business increased the operating company must furnish additional rolling stock. They provide in section 10 for initial equipment and then, in the next clause they provide for equipment which overlaps everything. In clause 10 we find a provision that will carry out their idea of initial equipment by the company and of additional equipment by the government of Canada. I think that no reasonable person could take any other meaning from looking into all the circumstances of the statute. I have read section 11 which says that they contemplated that this company must have rolling stock. Let me look back at section 10 and see if it is not based on the same idea:
Before any of the company's bonds shall be guaranteed, the company shall provide, in a manner satisfactory to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by a deposit in money or other sufficient security, or of a deposit of part money and part security, in addition to such mortgage, for the payment of interest on such bonds during the construction of the said line of railway, and until the same shall have been fully completed and provided with the initial equipment

It means exactly the same and coincides with the other clause, except that the use of the word ' equipment ' shows that the government had it in their mind that it would be reasonable ito expect 'that the company should supply the initial equipment.


Robert Laird Borden: What is there in that which is inconsistent with the idea of the government supplying it. The point

of that is, that until the road is in operation and earning a revenue there must be some provision made for - the payment of interest,


George Perry Graham: They are going to release this money every ten miles, and consequently the section cannot mean what my hon. friend says it does. What they meant to say undoubtedly, and what we aTe willing to provide for. is that, when the road is completed and the government takes it over, as additional rolling stock is needed the government of Canada will provide it for the increasing trade. I cannot see that their legislation means anything else. To put the word ' equipment ' in in two places and to say in one place the company must supply the initial equipment, and in another to say that the government of Canada must supply the equipment is conflicting. I believe the government of New (Brunswick never intended it to mean anything else than that the initial equipment should be supplied by the company, and the company agrees to accept that. I am, therefore, prepared to agree to an amendment, and I think every reasonable man will accept it, which will cover what I think the government of New Brunswick had in its mind and will be what I believe to be reasonable, and that is to add after the word ' operation ' in line 16, the words: ' Including the supply of additional rolling stock from time to time sufficient to handle the traffic as it may increase.' That means that the government of Canada in leasing this road shall agree to supply additional 'rolling stock from time *to time sufficient to meet the needs of the traffic. Surely that would make it plain, and be fair, and it will I believe place in this resolution exactly what I believe the New Brunswick government had in its mind.


Robert Laird Borden: The meaning of the legislature can only be found in the construction of the language used, and in my opinion it is utterly impossible to get any such meaning out of section 10 as that which the Minister of Railways has placed upon it. It is perfectly consistent with section 10 either that the equipment shall be supplied by the company or the equipment shall be supplied by /the government of Canada.


George Perry Graham: Would the hon. gentleman think it reasonable that the government of New Brunswick should suppose that this government would supply the equipment as the road is being constructed?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not dealing with suppositions. I am dealing with the language of the statute. There is not one word in section 10 inconsistent with the provision in section 16, that the road may be equipped either by the company or Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
by the government of Canada with proper and sufficient rolling stock.


William Pugsley: What does the hon. gentleman make of section 9 which provides that the company shall give a mortgage upon its railway and rolling stock to secure the bonds which the province is to guarantee?


Robert Laird Borden: I would not wonder at the Minister of Railways who has not had the advantage of a training in the construction of statutes making an argument of that kind, but I am surprised at the Minister of Public Works who is an able and experienced lawyer, making such a suggestion.


William Pugsley: You won't answer?


Robert Laird Borden: I will answer very quickly, and the answer is that this statute looked to two possibilities in respect to equipment, one possibility was equipment by the company and the other possibility was equipment by the government of Canada, and it was absolutely essential that both in sections 9 and 11 they should include rolling stock.


William Pugsley: If the provincial government was in no way concerned in having the company provide the initial equipment why should they expressly provide that the mortgage for their security should cover the rolling stock?


Robert Laird Borden: Because if the rolling stock was there it was businesslike to provide that they should have a lien upon it.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend think that the company would provide that initial equipment just for fun?.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)? Certainly not; but in the progress of the negotiations the arrangement might have been that the company would provide the rolling stock, or, that the government of Canada would provide the rolling stock, and it was perfectly reasonable and consistent that the term ' rolling stock ' should be used in sections 9 and 11. I should not think that the Minister of Public Works, who is a lawyer of well-known ability and experience, would put forward such an argument seriously. Section 10 had simply one thing in mind, and that was that the province of New Brunswick should have reasonable provision made, before this road was in operation, for the interest upon those bonds, and hence the wording of that section. It was absolutely immaterial, so far as that clause was concerned, in that aspect, whether the equipment should be provided by the company or by the government of Canada. What they were concerned with was chiefly that until the road was in operation and until revenue was being earned from it, some provision should be

made for the payment of the interest on these bonds. The Minister of Public Works would himself have used about the same language as section 10 is couohed in, to meet the same conditions.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to point out to my hon. friend from York that the object of the proposed amendment is to meet the contention which is put forth in the province of New Brunswick for the last three or four weeks, to the effect that they could not build this road on account of the little bit of equipment that is required. They say, if you get rid of the equipment, we can do it; but they are not touching the really important parts of this resolution. If my hon. friend were sincere, and wanted to make this conform to the legislation of New Brunswick, he would cut out the whole of the latter part of the resolution, which reads as follows:
Provided, however, that the said contract shall be entered into only upon the condition that the said railway be constructed upon plans and specifications to be approved of by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and shall be up to the general standard of the said National Transcontinental railway through the said province.
Section 11 of the Provincial Act provides that there can be no grade higher than four-tenths of one per cent. As the legislation stands, the government of New Brunswick could not sign a contract for a road with a higher grade than that.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that not the general standard of the Transcontinental?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is not. The general standard is four-tenths of one per cent going east and six-tenths going west, where practicable; but if that is not practicable, the grade going west can be as high as one and one-tenth. When Mr. Hazen and his friends passed this legislation, they particularly located the road to run from Grand Falls to Andover, from Andover to Centreville, from Centreville to Lakeville, and from Lakeville to Woodstock. Now, it is a physical impossibility to build a railway between Clearview and Woodstock on a four-tenths grade, except at a cost of probably $100,000 a mile and by lengthening the road 8 or 10 miles. Therefore the government of New Brunswick will be compelled to change its legislation if it hopes to have the road touilt. My hon. friend from. York is not sincere when he says he is moving this amendment to make it conform to the legislation of New Brunswick. He knows that he is not. He is only moving it for election purposes.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is not in order to question the sincerity of any member of the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the Chairman wants me to withdraw that, I will do so, and I will say that^if my hon. friend is sincere in wishing to change the unimportant part of the legislation, why does he not move to change the important part, and have a vote upon it? He dare not do it,


Oswald Smith Crocket: I will leave the sincerity of my hon. friend and myself in this matter to the electors of the counties of Garleton and York.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, may I ask your decision on the point I raised a few moments ago?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The point raised, as I understand, is as to the power of this committee to introduce a word which might have the effect of imposing an additional burden on the people.. The resolution has been brought down on the recommendation of the Governor. By it power is given to the government to enter into a contract for the operation, maintenance, upkeep and repair of a certain railway. A part of the proposed amendment is to introduce after the word ' operation,' the word ' equipment.' It would seem to me that this would mean an additional burden on the people, and therefore would come within the rule forbidding a private member moving an amendment or bringing in a motion involving an additional expenditure. But I am willing to hear the opinion of experienced members of the House on the point before ruling.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not sure that the rule applies where a resolution has been introduced and an amendment proposed. When a resolution is brought in by the government, it is obviously not incapable of amendment, and I think I have seen authority that it may be extended in such cases.


William Pugsley: My view is that the resolution may be amended, but only in the way of reducing the burden on the people, as in Committee of Supply a private member can not move to increase an appropriation, but can move to reduce.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I was quite aware of the rule which precludes a private member from introducing a resolution or amendment which might entail a financial burden on the people; but I do not think that precludes a private member from moving an amendment to a resolution brought down by the ^government even though it may have the'effect of possibly increasing the expenditure. I certainly can recall instances in which amendments of that kind have been moved in this House. For instance, when the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill

was before this House, amendment after amendment was moved to change the route of the railway, adding possibly to the expense that might be entailed. The first part of this amendment seeks to amend the preamble of the resolution. It is simply only for the purpose of converting an untrue preamble or recital into a true preamble or recital. I submit that the amendment is perfectly in order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the amendment of the hon. member had been divided into two parts and that down to line 15 stood alone, I presume I could accept it, it being merely a recital, but in the enacting part, lines 26 and 27, it appears to be in a little different position.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax), thinks he knows of occasions when a money resolution was amended so as to extend it


Robert Laird Borden: I think that.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not contradict my hon. friend, but I have no such recollection. The spirit of the rule is that ho charge shall be laid upon the public except upon the initiative of the Crown, and it would surprise me if precedent could be quoted to the effect that the rule had been extended in the way suggested. It will strike every member of the committee that if the object of the amendment is to extend the charge upon the people, it would certainly be out of order. I have listened all afternoon to this discussion, and would observe to my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) that when the resolution provides for the leasing by the government of the road with its ' appurtenances and rolling stock ' in my humble judgment that is the same as ' equipment.' I cannot see any difference.


John Dowsley Reid: Have we been sitting here since three o'clock discussing a matter without knowing that it was out of order?-discussing it from three o'clock until 11.20 and the Prime Minister raised no objection before? If we had known that you, Mr. Chairman, intended raising an objection of that kind, it could have been settled at three o'clock this afternoon. You have allowed this


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I must interrupt the hon. member. The point of order has been raised by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) within the last fifteen minutes.


John Dowsley Reid: But the amendment was handed to you this afternoon. Surely you as chairman should know whether it was out of order


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman is at liberty to address himself to the point of order. That is the subject before the Chair and not the conduct of the chairman.


John Dowsley Reid: But, on the point of order, I have been under the impression that when an amendment is placed in the chairman's hands he should know whether it was in order or not. In that way, we should be prevented from losing hours and hours, perhaps days, in a discussion over a resolution that could not be voted on. In other words, the Prime Minister, who is leading the House, I should think, would have raised the objection at the time, and not allowed the whole day to go by. I think it is the duty of the Prime Minister to have shown us at the start that he intended to raise this objection. There is no doubt that if the Prime Minister says he will withdraw his opposition as to this being out of order, we can take the vote. But, as he has raised the point of order, the vote cannot be taken. There is some object in preventing the vote being taken. I think it is unfair that we should be here all day, and, at a quarter past eleven, the Minister of Railways should raise a point of order simply to escape a vote.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: No authority has been quoted to me to show that the amendment is in order. I have had handed to me by the clerk a ruling of Speaker Kirkpatrick on a subject closely allied to this, and reported in Desjardin's ' Speakers' Decisions:'
Amendment ruled out of order because its effect would have been to increase the burthen on the people beyond that recommended by the Crown.
The House, according to order, resolves itself into a committee to consider certain proposed resolutions respecting the granting of land, or scrip redeemable in land, to the members of the enrolled militia force actively engaged in suppressing the half-breed and Indian outbreak in the Northwest.
The question being proposed, that the said resolutions be now read a second time; Mr. Watson moved in amendment, seconded by Mr. Carey, that all the words after * now ' to the end of the question be left out, and the words ' recommitted to Committee of the Whole House, with power to amend the same by providing that any member of said enrolled militia who has located a homestead and pre-emption shall, in lieu of the grant hereinbefore mentioned, be entitled to get his pre-emption free,' inserted instead thereof.
Objection being taken to the said proposed amendment on the ground that it was in effect increasing the burthen beyond that recommended by the Crown,
Mr. Speaker said: ' That the point of order was well taken, and that the motion in amendment could not be put.'
It appears to me that this is sufficiently close to the present case to be applicable,

and that the spirit of the rule with regard to increasing public burdens without the recommendation of the Crown applies to the proposed amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: The authority which I had in mind is to be found in May's 'Parliamentary Practice page 564:
The committee is not bound by the terms of the provisions which the ministers of the Crown have inserted in the Bill; and any member may propose an increase of the grants specified in these clauses, or to extend the application of the provisions of the Bill, whatever may be the cost resulting therefrom, so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.
That is the question here.
Acting on this principle, when, in 1812. a committee was considering a message from the Prince Regent, recommending, in general terms, provision to be made for the family of Mr. Spencer Perceval, amendments were permitted for increasing the provision proposed by the minister; and this practice has been supported by rulings from the chair, though, on the last occasion, not without remarks which deserve careful consideration.
I knew I had seen something of the kind. But there are other authorities later in the book which seem to point in the other direction. But what I have read is what I had in mind.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: My ruling would be that the amendment is not in order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: In accordance with your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, I move that the preamble of the resolution be amended by inserting the word ' equipment ' between ' operation ' and ' maintenance ' in the fifteenth line thereof.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I am willing to hear any objection on the point of order, if any member desires. It appears to me) that it is in order to make this amendment as being in the preamble, the recital, and not in the enacting part.	.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Perry Graham: I move that between the word ' with ' and the words ' rolling stock ' in the twenty-seventh line the word ' initialled ' be inserted. That conforms absolutely with section 10.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Perry Graham: 
Robert Laird Borden: You would have to get the assent of the Crown to that.


George Perry Graham: His Excellency, I think, understood this to be the meaning of the resolution. I do not think it will require the consent of the Crown, it is simply to make the meaning plain.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the proposed amendment involves an increase without the consent of the Crown, I would not be prepared to consent to it.


Robert Laird Borden: Better go to the telephone.


George Perry Graham: The operation really means the addition of that rolling stock, but in order not to have a misunderstanding it is better to have this inserted. There is one other amendment, that the figures ' 50 ' in the phrase ' from Fredericton south a distance of 50 miles ' be changed to 40. The reason for this change is that if we leave it at 50 miles it might be that we could not enter into arrangements to operate that section until a bridge was constructed, which might cause delay.	.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 150) to authorize the government of Canada to acquire by lease a certain line of railway in the province of New Brunswick.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 21, 1911.