APPOINTMENT OF TRANSLATORS.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have directed the
Clerk of the House to lay upon the table of the House my recommendation and his report in the matter of the proposed appointment of ten permanent translators on the staff of the House.



POLLUTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEO. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk), moved that the third report of the Select Standing Committee on the Pollution of. Navigable Waters be concurred in.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What is nr that report?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The report recommends that the committee be appointed next year, and further;
That the Government endeavour to arrange during the coming recess of parliament for a conference of representatives of the Dominion of each of the provinces, of the International Waterways Commission, and the chairman of this committee, for the purpose of fully discussing the whole subject, with a view of endeavouring to overcome local difficulties, and of agreeing upon some form of remedial legislation -which could toe passed concurrently by the Dominion Parliament, and toy the legislatures of the various provinces.


Wilfrid Laurier: The recommendation of the committee, that the Government should enter into a conference with the /various provinces, is certainly a good one, but the other recommendation, that the committee should be reappointed, is simply a pious wish which cannot have any binding force.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would not bind Parliament next session.


Mr. BRADBURY:: This committee was appointed rather late in the session, and we did not have the opportunity that /we thought necessary to enable us to bring in a final report, but the witnesses that we have examined have given evidence which, I think, points to the absolute necessity of some federal legislation being enacted to prevent the pollution of our streams. The men examined, who were as well qualified as any men in Canada to express an opinion, have all agreed that the present conditions in Canada regarding the pollution of our great lakes and navigable streams are becoming alarming. While the report of the committee aEks for the continuance of the committee next year, the intention was simply to draw the attention of the House to the necessity of continuing this investigation next year. It does not mean that the present committee should be continued; at least, that was not the intention. It simply suggests that a committee with like powers he appointed next year. It is only a suggestion to the House. We thought it advisable that the different provinces should be asked to co-opef-

ate, and the report recommends that the Government request them to name representa-' tives to meet in conference during the recess to discuss what might best be done to arrive at some definite arrangement, as to the legislation which should be brought down. The object of the committee ;was, I think, to gather as far as possible an expression of opinion from the provinces as to how far they are willing /to go in this matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: The idea presented in this report seems to me to be worthy of consideration, but the report appears to be open to two objections. First, as I have pointed out, the reappointment of the committee for next year would be out of order. The powers of this committee cease with the present session. Moreover, whilst for my part, I would altogether approve of the recommendation to the Government that during the recess they should organize a conference between representatives of the Dominion and of the provinces for the purpose of discussing the matter investigated by the committee, there is another recommendation which seems to be absolutely out of order also. Let me read it:
In conclusion your comittee, having in view the gravity of the present situation, and the importance of having 6ome action taken at as early a date as possible to prevent the continuance of the practice now so prevalent of
Diluting the waters of the country by the
ischarge thereinto of untreated sewage and other offensive matter, recommend that the Government endeavour to arrange, during the coming recess of Parliament, for a conference of representatives of the Dominion, of each of the provinces, of the International Waterways Commission, and the chairman of this committee.
The Chairman of this committee has no existence the moment we reach prorogation. If the Government choose to invite Mr. Bradbury to take part in the conference, I have no objection.


George Henry Bradbury: That was suggested by the committee; it was not my desire.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps my
hon. friend had better take back the report, and have it recast.


Mr. BORDEN:: I think it would be better to allow the report to stand, and if the right hon. gentleman desires to have it referred back to the committee, I have no objection. I think there are some objections to it in its present form.
Report stands.



UNITED SHOE MACHINERY COMPANY.

Mr. CARVELL:: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if the time has not gone by when the United Shoe Machinery Com-Mr. BRADBURY.
pany should bring themselves within the order of the board regarding combination in restraint of trade. I understood that they had six months in which to do certain things, and that that period expired some time in the early part of May, and nothing has been done. Will the minister tell the House how the matter stands?


Mr. CROTHERS:: My hon. friend is quite right in saying that the six months allowed by the board expired early in May-on the 6th of May, I think. Nothing has been done since; we have been too busy with other matters; but I understand they have made certain alterations in their leases to meet the requirements of the report of the board. I have not examined into that, but that is the information I have received from their solicitor.



INTERNAL STORAGE ELEVATORS.

Mr. BUCHANAN:: This morning's Ottawa Citizen publishes a despatch stating that the internal storage elevators are to be located, the one for Saskatchewan at Moose jaw, and the one for Alberta at Calgary. I ask the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce if that is correct.


Mr. PERLEY:: A few days ago the Board of Grain Commissioners reported, recommending that an internal storage elevator should be built at Moosejaw and another at Saskatoon, in Saskatchewan. No recommendation has yet been made with regard to the location of the elevator in Alberta. Steps will he taken at once to follow the recommendation of the commissioners, and plans will be immediately prepared for the building of the elevators at Moosejaw and Saskatoon.
(SUPPLY BILL-THIRD READING!
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 242, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1914, was read the third time, and passed.



INTER-IMPERIAL TELEGRAPH SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. P. PELLETIER (Postmaster General), moved third reading of Bill No. 188, to provide for more advantageous Telegraphic Communication between Canada and the United Kingdom and other parts of the British Empire.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: When does the Postmaster General expect this system will start operations ?


Mr. PELLETIER:: The point now being considered is the land line connection. Through the concurrence of the Minister of Railways we are trying to secure for

the Intercolonial railway the advantage, which is somewhat important, of having the land line on the Intercolonial. The representative of the syndicate is negotiating with Mr. Gutelius, general manager of the road. I understand that within four or five months they will be ready.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals), House went into committee to consider certain proposed resolutions respecting the granting of the subsidies therein mentioned to certain railways companies. (See Debates, p. 11322.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
To the Margaree Coal and Railway Company, Limited, for the following lines of rail-
W^a) from a point on the Intercolonial railway near Orangedale to St. Rose; not exceeding 46 miles.	.
(b) from a point on the Intercolonial railway near McIntyre Lake to Caribou Cove, Port Malcolm, Richmond county; not exceeding 4 miles.
the said subsidies being granted m lieu ol subsidy granted by chapter 51 of 1910, section 1, item 4; not exceeding 50 miles.
Wilfrid Laurier: Has any
work been done on this railway?


Mr. COCHRANE:: No. They inform us
they have now arranged their finances so that they can go ahead. Last year the subsidy was granted for fifty-one miles, but the survey shows fifty miles, and the present subsidy is for that length.


Mr. CARROLL:: Is this the company
that owns the coal areas in that county?


Francis Cochrane: I do not know. The
applicants are A. W. Chisholm, Charles E. Sherman, J. D. Taylor, Thomas S. Courtenay, and others.


Mr. BURNHAM:: So far as I am personally concerned, I would like to put on record my belief that the time has come in the history of this country when we should no longer subsidize anything. If public assistance has got to be given for the general benefit of the country, the work with respect to which that assistance is given should be undertaken by the country itself. I wish to place myself on record in that respect, because I firmly believe in that policy, and I hope the day will soon come when shall grant no further subsidies to private parties out of the public treasury.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
To the Northern New Brunswick and Seaboard Railway Company, for a line of railway
from the Drummond Mines at Austin brook, a branch of the Nepisiquit river above Great Falls, in the county of Gloucester, to a point on the Intercolonial railway where it intersects the branch line from Bathurst Station to Bathurst Harbour, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 48 of 1912, section 2, item 24; not exceeding 16.9 miles.
Francis Cochrane: The Government has
decided to dredge out Bathurst harbour, and thus the line will be shortened. The present subsidy is for the shorter length of line.


Mr. TURGEON:: This will permit the
company to extend their road to Bathurst harbour.


Francis Cochrane: Yes. The Government are dredging Bathurst harbour.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The company have sixteen miles already built.


Francis Cochrane: The road is already
built; but it would have to he extended further if Bathurst harbour is not dredged. It means that much subsidy saved. The line is owned by the Drummonds; it runs out to their mine there.


Onésiphore Turgeon: This company has built their railroad from the mine to the junction of the Intercolonial. That is about sixteen miles, which is in operation, and they are asking for a subsidy from the junction of the Intercolonial railway to Bathurst harbour.


Francis Cochrane: No, this is cutting off a subsidy. The subsidy was granted for twenty-six miles. Now we are having a revote for sixteen and nine-tenths of a^mile. By going to Bathurst harbour, the line is shortened. They can get deeper water by dredging the harbour.


Wilfrid Laurier: Have they
been paid anything?


Francis Cochrane: No, nothing has been paid yet.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
To the Tobique and Campbellton Railway Company, for a line of railway from Plaster-Rock along the Tobique river to Riley brook, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 51 of 1910. section 1, item 15; not exceeding 28 miles.
Wilfrid Laurier: Has anything been done there?


Francis Cochrane: No, they have told U3 that their finances are now in such a shape that they can go ahead.


Mr. MICHAUD:: When do they expect
to start?


Francis Cochrane: They promised they
would start as soon as the subsidy was voted.


Pius Michaud: Will the hon. minister give me the names of the directors of the company?


Francis Cochrane: Donald Fraser, Archie Fraser, H. N. Murchie and others.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
To the St. John and Quebec Railway Company, for a line of railway from Andover to St. John, New Brunswick, exclusive of a railway bridge across the St. John river, at or near Mistake, and a railway bridge across the Kennebecasis river at or near Perry Point, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 46, of 1912, section 2, item 2: not exceeding 200 miles.
Pius Michaud: I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Railways has not seen fit to grant a subsidy for the construction of this road, not from Andover to St. John but from Grand Falls to St. John. When the late Government was in power, there was an agreement that this road should not be constructed unless it should be built from St. John to Grand Falls. Now for some reason unknown to me, this road is to stop at Andover, a small and rising town on the St. John river, in the county of Victoria. There is every reason for building this road as far as Grand Falls. The country along the St. John river is probably as fertile as any land in Canada. Any railway built along the valley of the St. John river will certainly pay, if it is properly managed. The country from Andover to Grand Falls covers a distance of twenty-five miles. There is on both sides of the river well cultivated and well settled land. The farmers are well off and want transportation facilities for their products. The people of the northern part of New Brunswick want this road built as far as Grand Falls, and they want connections with the Canadian Pacific railway and the National Transcontinental railway there. If the road stops at Andover and runs over the Canadian Pacific railway,
I am afraid there is something behind the scheme that will hurt the progress of the people of the northern part of New Brunswick. It seems to me that the Canadian Pacific railway is going to take over this road. If so, where will competition arise in the way of transportation? At Grand Falls we have a great water-power which is about to be developed. This water-power is held 'by a large company, and I am informed that some of the members of that company are directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. If this railroad is not constructed as far as Grand Falls, the connection with the other railways will not. be accomplished. We expect to build a great pulp mill, to develop electricity with this water-power and to provide great industries, not only in the northern part of New Brunswick, but all along the St. John river.
I would, therefore, ask that the minister Mr. COCHRANE.
give us a subsidy, not for two hundred miles, but for two hundred and twenty-five miles, from Grand Falls to St. John.


Francis Cochrane: There is no settled
policy that we shall not build up to Grand Falls; but at present, to say the least, the carrying trade is not very great there. There is an expensive bridge to build and the Canadian Pacific railway run on one side of the river and the St. John and Quebec railway on the other. I know it would accommodate the settlers to have a road on both sides; but we.thought, as the Intercolonial is to run on a forty and a sixty per cent basis, for the present at least it is going to cost more than we can receive until the trade is built up. There is no possibility of getting the road up to Grand Falls in the meantime. Before we ask the House to subsidize the road up to Grand Falls, we should have more information and know definitely what we can get by building this bridge and proceeding twenty-five miles further.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has the hon. minister
entered into any negotiations with the Canadian Pacific railway as to running rights over the road from Aroostook to Grand Falls?


Francis Cochrane: They approached us
and said they would give us fair running rights there and would be glad to do it as there was scarcely enough space for a road there. I thought we might leave this out in the meantime, and not decide until further information was given.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does that mean that the Intercolonial railway would take the Canadian Pacific railway from Aroostook junction to Edmundston or only to Grand Falls?


Francis Cochrane: From Andover to
Grand Falls.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would be in the parish of Andover, but I am satisfied it would not be in the town of Andover.


Francis Cochrane: I am not familiar
enough with the locality to tell my hon. friend.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It does not mean taking the Canadian Pacific railway from Grand Falls to Edmundston.


Francis Cochrane: No, not necessarily.


Pius Michaud: I am afraid the right
of running over the Canadian Pacific railway from Andover to Grand Falls might interfere with the connection we have with the Canadian Pacific railway, and I hope it will not change anything.


Francis Cochrane: I do not know how
it would interfere. We should run our own trains right up to Grand Falls.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister will re-
. member that last .session this Parliament agreed to lend $1,000,000 to the St. John and Quebec railway for the purpose of helping to construct three bridges. If this proposed agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway goes through, it will be unnecessary to construct the Andover bridge.


Francis Cochrane: At present, anyway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the minister pay that $1,000,000 to the company or will he retain a paTt of it?


Francis Cochrane: No, the vote is for
three bridges and we should not have authority to pay it out for only two. We shall have to deduct a portion for the Andover bridge.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad to hear that
statement. But I want to tell the minister that they will be here inside of one month to have that $1,000,000 voted for the two bridges, the Mistake and the Kennebecasis; and more than that, the minister will give it.


Francis Cochrane: The hon. gentleman
may know more than I do, but the minister will not give it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, we have accomplished something. I must say this is the first time I have ever been able to accomplish anything with the Minister of Railways. I am delighted to hear that from him. A year ago, when this legislation was going through, we knew what was going on. We have known for two years that they had no intention of building this road from Andover to Grand Falls. In a small place like New Brunswick the minister will understand, we probably know more about one another's business than do people in a bigger place. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Michaud) last session moved an amendment in this House, and it was voted upon, to provide that at least $250,000 should be appropriated to the bridge at Andover, but the minister and his friends voted that down. We knew this was coming; we knew that the St. John and Que-hec Railway Company never intended to go beyond the village of Andover, and we even had some doubts of their going that far. We knew they would go as far as the parish of Andover, but if they are talking about getting running rights over the Canadian Pacific railway, that means that they would go to the village of Andover. But we knew-or believed, at least-that they had no intention of building the bridge. It was to test the matter we moved the amendment, and of course the minister had' it voted down. I am delighted to hear him make the statement that he will not allow them to take all the money on the lower bridges. Will he go so far as to say that
be will reserve a quarter million as we proposed last year?


Francis Cochrane: I could not say that, for, not having 'the report of the engineer, I do not know how it should be divided. I do not know the character .of these streams well enough to give my hon. friend that promise. But it would have to be in proportion to the cost of the three bridges.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a fair proposition and I am glad to hear the minister make that statement. Of course, I realize that no man can say that a quarter of a million dollars would be the exact proportion of cost of this bridge, though I believe it is pretty nearly correct. But I am willing to trust the minister when he gives me his word to that extent, that he will carry it out exactly as given.


Francis Cochrane: I do not realize that we have a good thing in this.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I do not think the minister has a good thing in this; it is the other fellow who has the good thing. That is exactly what I want to tell him. The other fellow is getting something which no railway company in Canada has ever had before, and which I hope no railway company in Canada will ever get again. I tell the minister that there is nothing in his department that requires looking into so much as this St. John and Quebec Railway Company does. I cannot tell him all I know, but I can tell him enough to make him suspicious, and doing that, I shall accomplish my purpose. When he grows suspicious, and puts a man on the work in whom he has absolute confidence and who will tell him the truth, he will have something to do to straighten out the tangle. The scheme at first was all right; in my judgment it was one of the finest railway schemes proposed in eastern Canada for a long time. The original scheme was that a road should be built from Grand Falls to St. John, passing through a territory that is now without railway communication and making a connecting link to the. city of St. John for the Grand Trunk Pacific traffic. Now, I wish to point out the changes that have been made-not made by the minister, because I do not think he realized what was going on or the extent to which they were departing from the original proposition. Legislation was enacted on the 19th of May, 1911-chapter 11 of the statutes of that year -providing that the Intercolonial railway should have the right to lease this road when constructed and pay forty per cent of the gross earnings over to the company, which money would really go to the government of New Brunswick in so far as it was necessary to pay the interest on the bond guarantee, the balance remaining in the coffers of the company. That road was to be the very best railway which could be
1X675

constructed according to the nature of the country. The clause read:
Provided however that the said contract shall he entered into only upon the condition that the said railway be constructed upon plans and specifications to be approved by the Governor 'in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals and shall be up to the standard of the said National Transcontinental through the said province.
Now, the minister knows that the standard of the Transcontinental railway through New Brunswick is the standard of that railway through all the rest of Canada, except that there is one place from Plaster Rock eastward for about fourteen miles where they have a pusher grade of 1 -10 per cent. Except for that, the general make-up of the road, the width of embankments, width of cuts, curvatures, alignment, grades, station houses, rails, ties, fastenings [DOT]-everything that makes a road, is of the highest standard known in Canada; and the road we proposed building was to be up to that standard. But we have to admit that it would be necessary to depart from that standard so far as grades are concerned, because the standard of the Transcontinental in New Brunswick admitted of higher grades, though only in one place where it was absolutely necessary. In other words, we proposed a road which would be a real extension of the Grand Trunk Pacific to St. John and make the outlet to the Grand Trunk Pacific business for the port of St. John. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite came into power, and I will show the minister what this did. They passed an Act, chapter 49 of the statutes of 1912, and whoever drew that statute drew it very cunningly. The whole difficulty rests in the provisions of section 10, which is as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in any other Act, the agreement set out in the schedule to this Act is hereby ratified and confirmed and declared to be binding upon the respective parties thereto, subject to the provisions of this Act, and the Dominion may do whatever is necessary to give full effect to the said agreement and specifications to the provisions of this Act.
It will be seen that by this section the Act of 1911, which provided not for a tramway but for a railway, was entirely discarded. Then they proceed to ratify and affirm the provisions of an agreement attached to the Act as a schedule. Section 2 of the agreement is as follows:
That the company shall complete the construction and equipment of the said railway in all respects up to and according to the specifications hereto annexed and the requirements as in the preceding clause set out on or before the first day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen.	i
Mr. CARVELL.
But there is no schedule attached, and the result of that legeislation was that the minister absolutely abrogated the provisions of the Act of 1911. He makes law an agreement made between the railway company and the province of New Brunswick, in which it is stated that the specifications shall conform with the specifications in the schedule attached to the agreement, but no specifications are to be found. The whole matter was left wide open, and these people were free to do as they pleased.
It would amaze the hon. minister if he knew what they were doing. I know that the St. John Standard to-morrow will come . out with great headlines to the effect that Mr. Carvell is opposing the construction of the Valley railway, and all the lesser lights will do the same thing; but I consider that I have a duty to perform, and I intend to perform it. I wish to put the minister on his guard; I wish to acquaint him with the facts, and if he is not sufficiently interested to investigate the matter, I at least will have done my duty. I tell the minister and tap the Grand Trunk Pacific; other-word I know that will express the condition of affairs that exists. The only justification for the construction of that road under the conditions under which it is beipg constructed would be to go to JGrand Falls and tap the Grand Trunk Pacific; otherwise the minister was never justified, in making the contract which he did make. We are giving these people a subsidy of $6,400 a mile; the province of New Brunswick is giving them a bond guarantee of $25,000 a mile, and they are therefore receiving $31,400 a mile of public assistance. The Intercolonial is leasing that road, and paying back to the company 40 cents out of every dollar,,no matter-how much it costs to earn it. The minister is right in saying that this is a wonderful contract. It would be absolutely justified if we had a railroad connecting two competing points; a railroad which could get business, and which could handle the business lf it did get it. But the kind of Toad the minister is getting cannot get business, and could not handle it if it did. In my judgment the Government are going to suffer an enormous loss in the operation of this road. It they had carried out the original arrangement and built a road according to the standard provided in 1911, the results would have been satisfactory, and even if they had tapped the Grand Trunk Pacific at Grand Falls, sixty per cent would have paid runing expenses, the people would have got the benefit of it, and the Inter! colonial would not lose any money. It may ' be said that I am opposed to the local Gov; ernment of New Brunswick and opposed to [ this Government, and that I am trying to ; find fault. It is true that I am opposed to

the Government, but it is not true that I am trying to find fault. I am just as anxious to see the railroad built through that country as is any person in the province of New Brunswick. This railroad passes my home, where my mother and brothers live, and where our property is situated. The presence of the railroad increases the value of the property, and I therefore have a personal interest in its operation. It runs through fifty miles of my constituency, and it will provide railway facilities for the people throughout the whole of that district. I am interested privately and publicly; I want to see the road go through, but I want to see it go through in such shape that it will redound to the benefit of the people and not be a sink-hole for the funds of the Government that tries to operate it. I am not alone in my protest in regard to this matter. I call in evidence a member of this House who feels just as strongly over this matter as I do; a gentleman who perhaps is not in a position to protest as lustily as I do, but who is just as much interested in the matter, and who realizes just as well as I do the iniquity of this proposition. I refer to the hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. Crocket). I have in my hand a return brought down by the minister; and I want to read the first public protest received from one of his friends with regard to the character of the roads they are building in the province of New Brunswick. It is in the form of a telegram. and is as follows:
Fredericton, N.B., July 11, 1912.
A. W. Campbell, C.E.,
Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, Ottawa.
Construction is now proceeding on St. John and Quebec railway location which has been condemned by Dominion inspecting engineer. Think you should intimate to company that location must be approved before construction is proceeded with and that your department will not consider itself bound in reference to subsidy by approval of local government. Understand there is no need of any seven degree curve between here and St. John, yet company's plans show great number. There is one of them on one of the highest fills on the road within two miles of Fredericton on which construction is now proceeding.
Oswald S. Crocket.
I submit that my hon. friend did his duty; he pointed out to the minister what was going on at the earliest stages, before the plans had been approved, and before the construction of the road had been commenced. This was followed by a protest on the part of Mr. Sherwood, the chief engineer, who points out dozens of places in respect of which in his judgment the plans should be revised and made to conform to a proper standard. His letter may be found in this return under date of July 25; I have not time to read it, but I desire to call my hon. friend's attention to it.
He will find that at eight different points they put in 7-degree curves which his own engineers deemed unnecessary. The engineer pointed out dozens of things that were not necessary, but they have all come to pass. The St. John and Quebec Railway Company owns the Government of New Brunswick and owns the Government of Canada, and they are able to do whatever they please. Every objection urged by the Government engineer, Mr. Sherwood, was simply brushed aside, and the company went on to complete the road according to their own wishes. There was some dispute just below Fredericton as to the location of the road; whether it should go along the river where the people lived, or whether it should go back among the hills. In this matter the company won out; as they always do. They fought it out for a year, but the company won out, as they always do, and they tried to show, as I find by this return, that it would cost more to build a railway along the river than to put it out where nobody lives. It would cost only $16,000 a mile to build the road up to subgrade, even in the expensive places, and not more than half of that in the other places, and this company has received $31,000; and yet, with a confession like that, my hon. friend's department allows them in the end to have their way and go back in the woods and build a cheap road. They agreed that the road from Fredericton to St. John should have no greater grade against eastbound traffic than .4 per cent and against westbound traffic of .6 per cent. But there came a place where they had to cross a creek, just below Fredericton. This is a small creek which it would cost a few hundred or a thousand dollars more to bridge if they built it to grade, and a few thousand dollars to build the approaches if they were built up to grade; yet they asked permission of the Government to change the grade at that point. Mr. Taylor, the department engineer in New Brunswick, who, I judge, is a conscientious man and anxious to do right, is over-ruled in every case. My hon. friend's department came in, and they are putting in nearly a one per cent grade over this creek, a velocity grade, they call it, down one hill and up another and over the bridge in order to avoid building the road up to the proper standard. Yet they received $31,400 per mile of public money. That is south of Fredericton where they are supposed to be building a .4 per cent grade one way and a .6 per cent grade another way. My hon. friend should go north of Fredericton to see these people doing business in their own Yankee style. I do not know that my hon. friend is responsible for this, but his friends are. Of all the people -willing to build that railroad no

man would be listened to, let alone contracted with, except a shrewd Yankee named Gould, from the state of Maine, a bright fellow and a man against whom I have not a word to say. I rather admire a man who has sand enough to come over and clean up the whole province of New Brunswick, and I tell my hon. friends he will go away with $500,000 of clean, cold cash. There was no man on earth to whom they would talk except Mr. Gould, and they finally signed a contract with him, and he has them just where he wants them, he is doing up both this Government and the Government of New Brunswick.


Francis Cochrane: Is it not the same company you were doing business with?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not by any means.


Francis Cochrane: Oh, yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, but I know better. I do not want to say that offensively, but I am so positive that I am compelled to use pretty strong language.


Francis Cochrane: My department informs me to that effect.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend the
Minister of Railways is referring to an
agreement made in 1911 before he came into power; but that agreement was entered into when the local Government of New Brunswick would not agree with anybody else.


Francis Cochrane: I do not know that.


Mr. CARA ELL:: We all know it in New Brunswick. We know that the local Government would not even talk to anybody else. My hon. friend knows that Mr. Malcolm made an offer to take the bond guarantee and subsidy and build the road under the legislation we passed in 1911, and to build a railroad and not a tranrway; they treated him with contempt and laughed at him. I repeat that the only man they would consider for a moment was this Vankee, Gould, and they have got him and he has got them. The file is not nearly complete, because I have seen myself letters from Mr. Taylor ordering the contractors on that road north of Fredericton to stop work because he would not approve of the grades and curvatures. The work was stopped for two or three weeks, the contractors being held up; but finally Mr. Taylor was turned down and they went on, and. put in seven-degree curves the same as before and gradients the same as before. More than that, there were no specifications put in this legislation; and so the Government have agreed, by Order in Council, that they shall put in seven-degree curves wherever they want to and one per cent grades wherever they want to. I can take the minister to places in Carle-Mr. CARVELL.	:
ton-I have been on the ground myself, and I have seen plans and profiles that Show four seven-degree curves in one and one-quarter miles on a one per cent grade- and the minister talks about transporting freight over a road like that. I find in one of these documents a confession from the company themselves. When the Government engineer was trying to make them put on certain track fastenings to make the road safer from a transportation standpoint, and the company objected, they said:	Over thirty per cent of our
road is on curvatures, and less than seventy per cent is on tangents, and if you ask us to straighten up the rails on curvatures, you will make us spend too much money. The Yankee has had his' way every time he has gone up against the minister. I point to a dozen instances, and every time the Yankee comes up to the minister he wins.


Mr. FRIPP:: That is more than the rest of us can do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know how it
is, but he does it just the same; he puts in any grade he wants. If he wants the grade changed from four-tenths of one per cent to one per cent he can get it; he can get the road placed in the woods when it should be on the river; he can get as many seven-degree curves to the mile as he wants, and Mr. Taylor can object to his heart's content, and it amounts to nothing; Mr. Gould goes on and does as he has a mind to. I am not finding fault with Mr. Gould; he is a bright, shrewd man, a real gentleman to meet, a man who is getting from the Government of this country and of New Brunswick, as I said, $31,400 a mile for building a railway, and he is building simply a tramway. I make the statement to the minister now, and I want him to send some competent engineer over the road, with a knowledge of the statements I am making to him, that the railroad that these people are building from Fredericton to Centreville, for eighty-five miles that I know of, which I have gone over personally, is not costing, complete, $20,000 a mile, including bridges and everything else. I cannot go further that that, but I give my hon. friend the tip to go to the contractors and subcontractors, and to take the plans and profiles in his office, and comoare them with the actual conditions on the ground. He will then see whether I have not been doing my duty in calling his attention to the matter. You ask why I am doing this. I am doing it because, in the first place, I wanted this to be a railroad, and I worked for it five or six years. It was practically the one local road I have had in view almost since I was in politics. The Grand Trunk Pacific should neveT

have gone through the centre of New Brunswick. I agree with my hon friend the minister, and with the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) in that. I made that statement when my friends were in power, and if my hon. friend from St. Anto-ine would take the trouble to look up some remarks of mine, made in 1905-06, he would find that what I have said is correct. It should have gone down the St. John river to Fredericton and across to Moncton. You would only have increased the mileage by twenty or twenty-five miles, you would have had a much better railroad, and I do not think it would have cost so much as the present one. However, when I could not get what I wanted, I determined if posible to get a railway through that country. Whether my efforts had anything to do with it or not, I do not know, but the road is being built now, and I am glad of it. I am only sorry that we are not getting the kind of railway we should have got. I am bringing this to t*he attention of the minister bee a use the country is suffering, and because the Intercolonial is suffering. My hon. friend has to operate this railway, he has to pay back forty cents out of every dollar to this company, and as nearly as I can figure it out this company is going to make three-quarters of a million dollars in cold cash on the line to Andover. I realize the importance of the statement I am making. I know I am going to be pounded by every Conservative newspaper in New Brunswick, and that I shall meet this thing a good many times during the next few months. But I am doing my duty in pointing out the exact condition of affairs, which my hon. friend can find out for himself if he goes there and looks over the ground. I hope my hon. friend will do himself the justice of going there, or of sending someone in whom he has confidence, and if he does so, he will find a condition of affairs which he would hardly conceive possible. I am not casting any insinuations at anybody; I do not know who is to blame, but there seems to be someone high up in authority, who is allowing these people to build the kind of road they are building. As I said before, every time this shrewd Yankee runs up against the Department of Railways and Canals, he wins out, and you have proof of the fact in this document. There are to my knowledge, other proofs which do not exist in that document. It is not tgo late even now to remedy some of those defects. I do not believe there is a spot on that railroad where it was possible to put in one per cent grade * that they have not done so. They have made seven degree curves for the sake of getting rid of a few hundred dollars worth of material, when the road might as well have been made straight. Every device known to engineers
has been resorted to upon that work to make it valueless as a transportation proposition. It is unique; I think there is no road in the Dominion to-day-perhaps that is putting it too strongly-but I do not know of a railway to-day which pretends to be a transportation proposition that has the -curves and grades that this railway has.
As to the proposition of my hon. friend to lease the Canadian Pacific railway, I wish he would go into that matter carefully. It is true he will not get a great amount of business from Andover to Grand * Falls, -but the intention was to cross the river at Andover, and to give the people on the other side railway facilities which they do not have at present. It would be a very great boon to those people, and a great benefit to that portion of the province. But the real object of this road being built to Grand Falls was, as I have pointed out, to get the freight traffic from the Grand Trunk Pacific. My hon. friend will find that he can never do business profitably over the twenty-four miles which he proposes to lease from the Canadian Pacific railway. It is, without doubt, the poorest railrpad in the province, from a transportation standpoint. It is true that the Canadian Pacific railway have improved the road bed; they have put in culverts and the road is now in pretty good shape; but they have two grades on that twenty-four mile stretch which are simply impossible for transportation purposes. I have not the figures before me, but my hon. friend will find the first grade about half-way between Aroostook junction and Grand Falls, and the next one just before he comes to Grand Falls. I do not know how steep they are, but they are enormous, and away above everything that any railway pretending to be a transportation proposition should have. There is one place where they must climb a hill of one hundred feet, when they could have gone along on the level. But it was said yeaTs ago that it was only a question of building a road, and of getting 10,000 acres of land from the province. They built the kind of road that Mr. Gould is building for the Minister of Railways. He is getting $31,400 per mile for building that road, and the cheaper the road he builds, the more money goes into his pocket. It was just the same with the old New Brunswick company.


John Hampden Burnham: Why do you not join me in opposing subsidies?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think you are right. I want to see railways developed in Canada, and I do not see how you can get railways without assisting them. But I want the minister to assist them properly, and to protect himself when he is doing so.

The railway which he is proposing to lease from the Canadian Pacific railway never was, and never can be, a transportation proposition. He would practically have to build it all over again before he could get transportation over it. It is true that going east the grades are very much better than they are going foest. Even so, you have one grade going east which is a serious obstacle. It is wonderful how the visits of the Premier of New Brunswick and his colleagues synchronize with the lying down of the Department of Railways. I have been watching them now for two years, and every time anything is wanted from the Department of Railways, the whole Government of New Brunswick come up to Ottawa and get what they want.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In spite of bench warrants.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Pius Michaud: I hope that after who4 my hon. friend from Carleton has said, the Minister of Railways will look into this matter very closely. I believe that an investigation will have to take place. In this case I would suggest that my hon. friend from Carleton should be called as a Mr. CARVELL.
witness; I think he would give lots of information.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would furnish the witnesses; I am not much of a witness myself.


Pius Michaud: We have been much disappointed in the northern part of New Brunswick with regard to this railway. In the last provincial elections the whole campaign of the Conservative candidates was made on the construction of- this road as far as Grand Falls, and they pledged themselves that if this road were not built to Grand Falls they would resign their seats, should they be elected. Both candidates supporting this proposition were elected, and it is now up to them either to resign or to get the road to Grand Falls.. The whole idea of the road was to facilitate transportation from St. John with the Transcontinental railway in the northern part of New Brunswick, and I am sorry to say this has not been realized, because in the future I believe the Canadian Pacific railway will control the whole thing. May I ask the minister for how long the Intercolonial railway will lease this part of the road from Andover to Grand Falls?


Francis Cochrane: We have as yet made no arrangement as to that. We made an agreement of exactly the same kind that was under way when the former Government went out of office. Any changes that have been made in the specifications were made on the recommendation of the engineers. The. chief engineer went over this portion of the road himself and had extra lines run and reported in favour of the line that is being constructed. I see by these specifications that there is a four-tenths grade one way from Fredericton to St. John, and a six-tenths grade going west.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But they have departed from that.


Francis Cochrane: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Francis Cochrane: If they have departed from it, they will have to come up to it, because there has been no change made in the specifications.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is in the Order in Council.


Francis Cochrane: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister wants to look very carefully over the report made by his chief engineer. He is satisfied this road will cost $14,000, but I hope he will send Mr. Gutelius over it.


Francis Cochrane: He is going over it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope he will send somebody who will have an opportunity of spending more time on the road than Mr. Gutelius can. I know Mr. Gutelius' business well enough to know that he can only devote time for a hurried trip.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
To the Lotbini&re and Megantic Railway Company for a line of railway from a point at or near Lyster in Megantic county to a point at or near Lime Ridge in the township of Dudswell, in the county of Wolfe, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 51, of 1910, section 1, item 33, for a line of railway between the points above mentioned; not exceeding 60 miles.
Wilfrid Laurier: Has anything been done on this railway ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, they have built from St. Jean des Chaillons towards Glen-roy to Lyster. $96,000 has been paid. There is, I think, fifty miles to be built.
To the Little Nation River Railway Company for a line of railway from a point be tween Thurso and Montebello on the line of the Canadian Pacific railway, northerly, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 51, of 1910, section 1, item 46; not exceeding 30 miles.


Mr. PROULX:: Has any part of this railway been built?


Francis Cochrane: No.
To the Erie, London and Tillsonburg Railway Company, for a line of railway from Port Burwell to London, passing through or near Vienna, Cal ton, Aylmer, Kingsmill and Belmont, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 51, of 1910, section 1, item 37; not exceeding 35 miles.


Mr. GERMAN:: Has any part of this road been built?


Francis Cochrane: No.


William Manley German: When was this subsidy first granted?


Francis Cochrane: 1908.


William Manley German: I suppose the minister is aware that this line runs through the wealthiest portion of Ontario. Does he think the Government is justified in extending this subsidy, notwithstanding the fact that it was voted some years ago by
the late Government? Does the minister think this Parliament should grant subsidies to a line of railway built through the wealthiest part of Canada and on which are located progressive towns where large business can be secured right from the beginning?


Francis Cochrane: The Grand Trunk is asking for the subsidy.


William Manley German: I care little who asks for the subsidy. I would feel like moving that this resolution be struck out, but for the fact that there may have been some financial arrangements made which might be interfered with. If this road is not constructed and a subsidy earned, when it comes to be voted again, I shall certainly move to strike out a subsidy to this line of railroads.


Francis Cochrane: And I would support it too.


William Manley German: Then that is assured,
and the company will now have notice that, unless they earn their subsidy before Parliament meets again, it will be taken away. That should apply to all subsidies to railroads which are being built or contemplated through the portion of Ontario, which is the wealthiest part of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
To the Tillsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company, for a line of railway from Ingersoll north to a junction with the St. Mary's and Western Ontario railway at Em-bro, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 48, of 1912, section 2, item 12; not exceeding 10.38 miles.
William Manley German: I suppose nothing has been done on this.


Francis Cochrane: Yes, about thirty-five miles have been built.


William Manley German: I want the statement that I made with regard to the other subsidies to apply to this one.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
To the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for a line of railway from Gimli to a point on the Icelandic river at or near Riverton, in lieri of the subsidy granted by chapter 63, of 1908, section 1, item 39, for a line between the points above mentioned; not exceeding 30 miles.
Wilfrid Laurier: Anything
done on this railway?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. This is a continuation of the Selkirk and Winnipeg Beach branch to a distance of thirty miles beyond Gimli.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
To the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for a line of railway from Moose; aw, in a northwesterly direction, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 63, of 1908, section 1, item 10; not exceeding 123 miles.
Wilfrid Laurier: How much
has been built?


Francis Cochrane: It is finished. Their
subsidy lapsed.
Mr. McKay:	Has the Canadian Pacific
railway done anything on the extension commonly known as the Manitoba Northwestern? A charter was obtained under the name of the Manitoba Northwestern in 1882, and a line was projected to extend from Portage la Prairie to at or near Prince Albert. There was a land grant of some 3,200 acres per mile. After it went about half way, it was diverted from its original direction under the name of the Canadian Pacific railway. I presume the land grant will not extend further than the line was built under the name of the Manitoba Northwestern. The evil is this that, notwithstanding the fact that the road was built only about half the distance between Portage la Prairie and Prince Albert, the land grant was taken practically right up to Prince Albert, and was held by the company, thereby preventing homesteaders from taking this land. This corporation since then have parted with this land, and it is being sold and held at enormous figures, thereby militating against the district, not only by depriving it of railway communication, but by holding up the land at such large figures as to prevent the district from being thickly populated. If nothing has been done. I would ask the minister to induce this corporation to build that road and thereby relieve the farmers who are in that district.


Francis Cochrane: I am soTry at this
moment I cannot give the information which the hon. gentleman requires. I will see what our powers and authority are in the matter, and take it up with the Canadian Pacific railway. I shall be glad to give the hon. member the information later.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
To the Alberta Central Railway Company, for a line of railway from Red Deer to Rocky Mountain House, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 63, of 1908, section 1, item 38; not exceeding 70 miles.
Mr. OLIVER:: When was this subsidy
granted first?


Francis Cochrane: In 1908.


Frank Oliver: How far has the construction progressed?


Francis Cochrane: I do not think they
have done anything.


Frank Oliver: Yes, they have.
Mr. COCHRANE.


Francis Cochrane: There has been nothing paid on this subsidy, and that is why I say I do not think there has been anything done.


Frank Oliver: There is no information
as to how much?


Francis Cochrane: No, I think it is only being surveyed.


Frank Oliver: Oh, no; a lot Of work has been done on it.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
To the Kettle Valley Railway Company, for the following lines of railway:
(a)	from Merritt to Penticton wharf; not
exceeding 145 miles;
(b)	from a point on the line between (Merritt and Penticton wharf, at or near Penticton, to Midway; not exceeding 135 miles;
(c)	from a point on the line between Merritt and Penticton wharf, about 25 miles south of (Merritt, to a point on the Fraser river near Hope station; not exceeding 55 miles.
the said subsidies being granted in lieu of the subsidies granted by chapter 51, of 1910, section 1, item 42; not exceeding in all 335 miles.
Frank Oliver: What is the situation in regard to construction here?


Francis Cochrane: I have not got the exact mileage. The subsidy paid amounts to $353,709. If you divide that by $6,400, you will get the mileage. Eighteen per cent built on the first and ,thirty-four per cent on the second.


Mr. BURRELL:: They are prosecuting the work very vigorously. The latest advices I got only last week were that they had constructed a considerable portion) between Midway and Penticton. That is over the divide at the foot of Okanagan lake. They have a large amount pf construction and grading done from the foot of Okanagan lake round by Summerland towards Merritt, an,d have also got a lot of preliminary work done towards the Hope mountains. Mr. Hillof the GreatNorthern railway has been for something like five years trying to locate a line over the Hope mountains, but has not been able to do it yet, so far as I understand. There is a terrific grade from the summit of the Hope mountains down to Hope, involving about 6,000 feet of tunnelling. These people in the Kettle Valley have certainly pushed the WQrk along vigorously. The line will mean access to the Kootenay and the southern Okanagan and will save that enormous loop by way pf the Arrow lakes. The company is prosecuting the work in a way satisfactory to the people, and it will be an immense public benefit.


Frank Oliver: Who are behind the company now?


Francis Cochrane: The directors I have
here are J. J. Morgan, Hon. J. R. Stratton, R. P. Coffey and others. There is 101 miles in operation and 43 under construction.


Frank Oliver: Is it constructed and in operation to Penticton?


Martin Burrell: Yes, as a construction
line for a little way. They are building different sections from Merritt, from Sum-merland to Penticton, and Penticton to Midway. But it is run this far only as a construction line.


Frank Oliver: Are the rails laid from Penticton to the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Kettle River valley?


Martin Burrell: Not all the way. They have laid a considerable mileage from Midway up to Connor, that is before you come to the divide. And they have a large quantity of steel laid up there-perhaps for twenty-five or thirty miles. It is a very difficult construction, as the hon. gentleman knows.


Frank Oliver: This is the Canadian
Pacific railway?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, practically.
To the Calgary and Pernie Railway Company for a line of railway from Michel or Sparwood, in a northerly direction via the headwaters of the Elk river and Kananaskis Pass to a point at or near the city of Calgary, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 48, of 1912, section 2, item 43; not exceeding 100 miles.


Frank Oliver: Is any of this constructed?


Francis Cochrane: No, this is a subsidy voted last year. They were to staTt at Calgary. Now they want to start from Shar-wood or Michel, near Fernie-they just want to turn the subsidy around.


Frank Oliver: Is this the Canadian
Pacific railway practically?


Francis Cochrane: No, I never heard of the Canadian Pacific railway being connected with it. The application was made by Mr. Pringle, of this city. The directors include G. A. Fraser, S. S. Mahon and others.


Mr. LAW:: Before we pass from the railway subsidies, I would like to call the minister's attention to the need of a subsidy for a 'branch line from the Halifax North Western line to the town of Wedgeport, in Yarmouth county. There was a subsidy for this line, but it was dropped. I do not think it was voted last year either.


Francis Cochrane: Where does that line run?



REVISED

Bowman Brown Law: It is a branch from the Halifax and North Western at or near Pleasant Lake to Wedgeport, which is among the most important and thriving communities in Yarmouth county. They are entirely cut off from railway communication, and are very anxious to have it. It is only eight miles from Pleasant Lake to Wedgeport.


Francis Cochrane: Is there a company
ready to build?


Bowman Brown Law: I do not know. The question is to get a company ready to build.


Francis Cochrane: If there is a company I should be ready to consider the proposition.


Bowman Brown Law: This is a branch line to serve a population of about 2,500, and no doubt it would be a paying line if a railway company could be got to construct it. I hope the minister will not lose sight of it.
On section 2:
That the Governor in Council may grant the subsidy hereinafter mentioned towards the construction and completion of the bridge hereinafter mentioned, that is to say:
To the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company towards the construction and completion of a bridge over the second narrows of Burrard inlet, as authorized by chapter 74 of 1910, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 48 of 1912, section 3, item 1; not exceeding $350,000.


Frank Oliver: Is this the same amount as before?


Francis Cochrane: Yes; the only change is. that it is transferred to another company. I understand that the municipalities there and the province are building this bridge, with this subsidy from the Dominion.


Frank Oliver: This company is merely a holding company, as it were, for the municipalities?


Francis Cochrane: That is all. The subsidy last year was voted to the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon railway, and now it is changed to the company mentioned.


Frank Oliver: Why do not you provide so much for tunnel and so much for bridge?


Francis Cochrane: This is all bridge.


Frank Oliver: Is this in connection with some projected line of railway, and, if so, with what line?


Francis Cochrane: I understand that the railway will be the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon. But the municipalities are building the bridge with a grant from the provincial government and with the federal grant of $350,000.



EDITION

Frank Oliver: Is that the railway that is being 'built to connect Vancouver with Fort George?
Mr. COCHRANE. No, I cannot say where the road runs; but it is a separate road altogether.


Frank Oliver: Does the minister know whether the railroad that this bridge is being built to accommodate is a railroad under construction or is it merely on paper?


Francis Cochrane: I cannot say. But I understand that one of the conditions is that all roads shall have access to or running rights over this bridge.


Frank Oliver: I take it for granted that definite provision will be made in the subsidy agreement for the right of way for all roads?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As I made a statement a little while ago which was perhaps not strictly correct, and as I do not wish to do any injustice to anyone, I would like to place before the committee the record as to the proposed change of grade at Street's Creek on the St. John and Quebec railway south of Fredericton. To all intents and purposes the change has been made, although it is quite true that no order in council has been passed to that effect. On September 26, 1912, Mr. Taylor, the minister's inspecting engineer in New Brunswick, made the following report:
If the department decides to waive this in this particular instance, the company might be required to build the 14-foot arch culvert (Street's creek) at such a length as would retain the embankment, supposing the same was raised to the standard grades at some future time; such raising to be done by the Railway Department under clause 14 of said) agreement, the company to agree to same before this location is approved, in accordance with latter part of said clause, with the foregoing reservation I approve this alignment.


Francis Cochrane: That has not been
approved by the department.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am admitting that, but I am satisfied that the railway company is acting on the assumption that this suggestion is to be carried out. On October 31. 1912, the following telegram was sent by Mr. Bowden to Mr. Taylor:
Re velocity grades, Street's creek, is it

This is changed to ' it is.'
-advisable to reduce one per cent and .84 per cent grades as shown on profile submitted to not more than .75 per cent grade. Send profile showing your recommendations.
On November 1, this letter was written by Mr. Taylor to the chief engineer of railways :
Mr. COCHRANE.
Dear Sir,-I have a wire from you this morning as follows :: ' Velocity grade, Street's creek. Is it advisable to reduce one per cent and .84 per cent grades as shown on profile submitted to not more than. .75 per cent grade. Send profile showing your recommendations.'
It is evident that ' is it advisable ' in this letter should be ' it is advisable.'
Attached please find profile of ground in question. The red grade is the St. John and Quebec Company's proposition. The green grade is what I understand from the above wire to be your proposition. The dotted blue grade is what I propose as^ a compromise and to permanently settle this question.
It is true that the 0.50 per cent blue grade is not quite in accordance with the special agreement, but it is very near it.
If either the green or the red grade is adopted the company, in my opinion, should be required to carry out the provisions as outlined in my letter to you dated September 26, 1012, with reference to length of arch culvert and, later on, raising to standard grades.
On November 4, the following letter was written by Mr. Bowden, the chief engineer of railways, to Ross Thompson:
I inclose herewith a blue print-copy relative to velocity grades at Street's creek, mile 16, south of Fredericton. The grades of 0.84 per cent and 1 per cent a<re shown as laid: down by you, and a 0.75 per cent grade is shown, but its position is not to be consid/l ered fixed as shown.
Mr. Taylor has also shown a 0.5 per cent and an 0.33 per cent grade. I would like to have from you a profile showing the grades as originally shown by you, also a 0.75 per cent maximum grade laid down as you consider most economically, and the grades shown by Mr. Taylor; the respective quantities of rock, earth, &c., in cuttings, &c., entailed for each of the three profiles to be shown on the profile plan.
You understand, of course, that special permission would have to be secured by us for the use of such a grade, it being in excess of that called for by the agreement.
Later I find a minute of council which does not go so far as to authorize these velocity grades, but it comes pretty close to it. I will read an extract from this minute of council, which is dated January 16, 1913:
The minister further represents that the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals states that the maxima of curvature and grades conform to the requirements of the subsidy agreement, except between5 mileage 15.5 and 17.5, where the introduction of a velocity grade is considered advisable, but cannot be dealt with at present; the chief engineer advises that approval be given to the plans and profiles, with that exception.
It is true that the introduction of a velocity grade was not authorized, but the chief engineer reported that it was considered advisable, and, as the contract would have to be changed, an order in council could not be passed. The inference is that the Gov-

eminent intended to change the contract and pass an order in council to that effect.


Francis Cochrane: My chief engineer tells me that in allowing a velocity grade such as he has proposed there he saves four miles of line.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is nothing in the files to that effect.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and concurred in.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.



CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Cochrane, House went into Committee to consider certain proposed resolutions respecting the granting of the subsidies therein mentioned towards certain lines of railway of the Canadian Northern Railway Company (see Debates, pp. 11326-11327.)
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Francis Cochrane: In the legislation now before fthe House it is proposed to extend further aid to the Canadian Northern railway in connection with the 'building of its Transcontinental line from Montreal to Vancouver, and, also, to the important feeder to its main line between Ottawa and Toronto. The aid proposed is in the form of a cash subsidy at the rate of $12,000 per mile from Ottawa (to Port Arthur, and also for the same amount per mile from Edmonton to the Yellowhead Pass, and an amount of $6,400 per mile on the main feeder from Toronto to Ottawa, as follows:	Ottawa to
Port Arthur-nine hundred and ten miles, at $12,000 per mile, $10,920,000; Edmonton to Yellowhead Pass-two hundred and sixty miles, at $12,000 per mile, $3,120,000; Toronto to Ottawa-two hundred and fifty miles, at $6,400 per mile, $1,600,000-$15,-640,000.
A condition to the granting of the aforesaid aid is that the company are to transfer to the Government Canadian Northern railway common stock to the par value of $7,000,000. This common stock, although not on the market at the present time, has considerable value, and there is no doubt that after the completion of the undertaking it will be a valuable asset to the Dominion.
There is nothing applying to the subsidy of $6,400 per mile for the Toronto to Ottawa line calling for any special remarks, as this is the usual subsidy granted to practically all railway companies when the cost is equal to or exceeds $21,400 per mile. The estimated cost is $41,131 per mile.
On the Ottawa to Port Arthur line the construction is of a most expensive charac-
369i
ter, and the estimated average cost per mile is $49,381. The Government have already aided this section of the line by guaranteeing the three and a half per cent bonds issued by the company to an amount of $35,000 per mile, but the company have only been able to dispose of these bonds at the rate of ninety and three-fourtihs cents on the dollar, which has produced $31,760 per mile.
On the line from Edmonton to Yellowhead Pass the construction is also of. a very expensive nature. This section of the line has already been aided by the guaranteeing of the company's three and a half per cent bonds to the extent of $13,000 per mile starting at St. Albert thence westerly fifty miles; and from that point westerly for one hundred miles at the Tate of $25,000 per mile, and for the last one hundred and two miles westerly to the Yellowhead Pass at the rate of $35,000 per mile. These bonds were disposed of at an average of eighty-seven cents on the dollar; which produced $22,400 per mile.
The average cost of the line is estimated at $38,500 per mile. In other words, taking the line from Ottawa to Port Arthur and from Edmonton to Yellowhead pass; the company have financed to the amount of approximately $34,578,220, and are faced with a construction charge of $54,638,981. The aid now proposed on the above sections will amount to $14,040,000.
The question naturally arises as to the reasons which would justify the Government in granting this aid, and as to whether in granting the aid they are assisting this great Transcontinental line to a greater extent than the other two transcontinental lines of Canada. Careful consideration was given to this before the legislation brought down was approved, and the conclusion reached was that the Government, having regard to all the circumstances, were only dealing fairly with the Canadian Northern railway in granting them this aid. A comparison with that granted the Canadian Pacific railway cannot fairly be made, as the assistance rendered that road was on altogether a different basis. The land grant given the Canadian Pacific railway in the light of later developments was a tremendous bonus; but at the time it was not generally considered to be a very valuable asset. The money grants and the construction of certain sections of the road by the Government appeared at the time to be a large figure; but we must bear in mind that it was the pioneer road, and that little was known of the country it traversed.
A fair comparison as to aid given would be that granted the Grand Trunk Pacific railway for the construction of its main line from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert, and also

the terms and conditions in connection with 'the leasing of the eastern section from Winnipeg to Moncton, which is being built by the Government. The western division of the Transcontinental railway, which is owned and equipped by the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, is divided into two sections -the prairie section from Winnipeg to the east bank of the Wolf creek, a distance of nine hundred and fifteen miles, and the mountain section, from that point to prince Rupert, a distance of eight hundred and thirty-five miles.
The Prairie Section has been aided by a guarantee of bonds to the amount of $13,000 per mile, and in addition by a loan of $10,000,000.
The Mountain Section had been aided by a guarantee of bonds to the amount of seventy-five per cent of the actual cost of the road; and the cost of Ike Mountain Section is estimated to be $80,306 per mile; the guarantee will, therefore, average $60,229 per mile. A further aid to the Western Division was an implementing clause in the agreement between the company and the Government, whereby the Government was to pay the company the difference be-twen the par value of the bonds and the actual amount they produced. This has been estimated to amount, on the total guarantee, to $13,000,000; and there has been paid on this account $4,994,416. Latterly the Government has adopted the policy of purchasing the bonds themselves at par; but if they had made the whole purchase and then put them on the market there is no doubt that the amount realized would have been $13,000,000 short of the par value.
In addition to the above, the Government is to pay the interest upon an amount of bonds equal to the principal of the bonds guaranteed by the Government on account of the construction of the Mountain Section accruing during the first seven years. Estimating the cost of the Mountain Section as $67,056,000, the interest will amount to a cash subsidy of $10,561,321.
In respect to the Eastern Section, the Government is to build the same and lease it to the company at an annual rental based on three per cent of the cost. The estimated cost of this section, seven years from date road is completed, is $230,000,000. Based on this amount, the annual rental would be $'6,900,000. But there is another item which must be taken into consideration. If the company had built the road themselves and issued three per cent bonds to cover the cost of construction, and the total of these bonds had been guaranteed by the Government, they could not have sold them at par; and if we take the rate which was realized on the issue of the three per cent bonds guaranteed by the Government in 1909 and 1910 (eighty cents
on the dollar), we will find that to finance the Eastern Section it would have taken bonds the interest charges on which would have amounted to $1,125,000 more per annum than they; will pay the Government in rental. This is equivalent (assuming interest at three per cent) to a cash subsidy of $26,979,640.	_	_
The following summary will give briefly the aid granted by, the Dominion Government to these two transcontinental lines- The Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern railway:
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Guarantee of bonds-
In respect of Mountain
Section	$50,292,000
In respect of Prairie
Section	 11,895,000

Loans-
In respect of Prairie Section.. .. 10,000,000 Implementing or its equivalent by purchase of bonds-
In respect of Mountain and Prairie Sections . .$13,000,000 Interest on bonds for seven years-
In respect of Mountain
Section	 10,561,300

Eastern Section.
Saving to company by reason of the construction of the line by the Government, $1,125,000 per annum for 43 years	$26,979,640
Canadian Northern Railway.
Guarantee of Bonds	$50,655,000
Cash subsidy	 8,082,398
Proposed cash subsidy	 14,0-10,000
Statement showing aid granted by the Dominion Government to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway towards the construction of their main line from Winnipeg^ to Prince Rupert, a distance of 1,751 miles; and also, the aid granted^ or proposed to be granted, by the Dominion Government to the Canadian Northern railway for its main line from Montreal to Vancouver, a distance of 3,065 miles.
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Guarantee of bonds-
In respect of Mountain section	$50,292,000
In respect of Prairie
Section	 11,895,000

Loans-
In respect of Prairie Section.. ..10,000,000 Implementing or its equivalent by purchase of bonds-
In respect of Mountain and Prairie 'Sections. .$13,000,000 Interest on bonds for seven years-
In respect of Mountain
Section	 10,561,320

Mr. COCHRANE.

Canadian Northern Railway.
Guarantee of bonds-
Montreal to Port Arthur	 8,060,000
Grand View to Edmonton	 8,060,000
Edmonton to Yellow Head Pass. 6,720,000

Cash subsidies-
Ottawa to Hawkesbury	$	367,872
Stanley to Fort Frances	 1,355,326
Fort Frances to Rainy River..	..	179,200
Yellow Head Pass to Vancouver.	6,180,000
Cash subsidy under proposed legislation	 14,040,000


Mr. MACDONALD:: Has the minister
any statement as to land grants?


Francis Cochrane: No land has been
granted direct to the Canadian Northern railway, but that company, through the purchase of other railways, has acquired with them land grants to the extent of 4,000,000 acres, -of which 1,225,600 acres applies on its main line.


Wilfrid Laurier: In the first
place, I must express my disappointment at the meagreness of the reasons why my hon. friend has given to the House for this new aid to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. There is no disposition on this side of the House to view critically the legislation which has been introduced on the present occasion to grant assistance to that company in their enterprise of constructing a third transcontinental railway. Parliament has already subsidized that enterprise, and subsidized it upon terms which we thought to be generous and adequate to carry it to completion. So far as I have been able to follow his statement, the only reason given by my hon. friend why this additional assistance should be given to the company, is that it has not been assisted in the past so generously as the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific railway. I am sorry that the memorandum which has just been Tead by my hon. friend was not placed on the table earlier. When he gave notice of this resolution, I asked him to bring down all the correspondence, and to furnish, in advance, all the information that he had in his hands, so as to facilitate the discussion. My hon. friend told me then that there was no correspondence with the company-


Francis Cochrane: That is right.


Wilfrid Laurier: -that all the negotiations had been verbal. It seems to me that, since the company were asking such generous assistance, the Government would have done better to have asked them for a statement of the reasons which had brought them to the door of the Government for more assistance. It would
have been more satisfactory to the Government, to Parliament, and to the people, if the company had put those reasons in black and white. But since there has been no correspondence, we have to guess what the reasons may be. The only reason which has been disclosed. by my hon. friend up to the present time-and if I am in error he will correct ame-the only reason he disclosed in the memorandum which he read, and which I presume came from the company, was that the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific had been assisted upon a more generous scale than the Canadian Northern Railway Company. But I submit that that is no reason whatever. It must be apparent to everybody that, as a country develops, railway construction must become less and less expensive. The construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific could not 'be as expensive as that of the Canadian Pacific railway, and the construction of the Canadian Northern railway could not be as expensive as that of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company was the pioneer company, which had to carry its supplies and everything else through an unsettled country, and therefore the cost of construction must have been much heavier. When, later on, the Grand Trunk Pacific was constructed, that company had the benefit of the existing railway, the Canadian Pacific railway, and the cost of construction must have been very much less than that of the Canadian Pacific railway. When the third transcontinental railway, built by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, was proceeded with, it had the advantage of the two existing roads, over which it could carry its supplies. Apart from the one consideration, that labour may be dearer now than it was at the time the Canadian Pacific railway was built, although perhaps not much dearer than when the Grand Trunk Pacific was built, the conditions are to the advantage of the Canadian Northern. Canada has gone into the construction of railways on a scale up-precedented in any country. We were forced to do this on account of our proximity to the United States; we could not wait until private enterprise alone would provide the railway facilities which this new country required, and out of the bounty of the Government we aided private enterprise. But as time goes on and the country is developed, railway construction will less and less require aid from the public treasury.
The only reason given by my hon. friend so far for this proposal, is that he wants to equalize the assistance given to this road with the assistance given another road. That is no reason whatever for this legislation. The question is first, whether the enterprise is worthy of assistance, and,,

then, whether or not the company is able to carry on its enterprise. My hon. friend would not only have done well, but I submit that it was his -duty, first of all to give us a statement of the financial position of this company, so that we might judge whether the demand was justified or not. In 1884, when the Canadian Pacific railway was under construction, the company knocked at the door of Parliament for aid, and it was given. But they gave us a statement of their reasons for asking for aid, stating that they could not carry on the enterprise and that it would have to collapse if assistance were not given. If the Canadian Northern Company had now given us some reason of that kind, and had shown us that they were not in a condition to carry on their enterprise, I could understand the application which is made. But, as it is, we have to take a leap in the dark, and the only reason given is one which for my part I cannot entertain, and which I do not believe Parliament will entertain.
If this railroad has to be assisted, how are we to assist it? We have already subsidized this company to a large extent from Ottawa to the boundary of British Columbia, by endorsation of its bonds to the amount of $35,000 per mile. As to the section in British Columbia, from the Yellowhead pass to the Pacific ocean, we gave it last year a cash subsidy of $12,000 per mile, and in addition it has a subsidy from the province of British Columbia. It will therefore be seen that the company has already been generously subsidized. The only point, after all for us to consider is this: if it requires assistance, what should the nature of that assistance be? I believe the days have passed when an enterprise of this kind should be aided by a cash subsidy. We have not done it in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and there is no reason why we should do it in the case of this railway. If any assistance is to be given to the company, it should be by way of loan and not by way of cash subsidy.	-
Looking back upon the history of railway legislation in Canada, we must come to the conclusion that the Government of the day would have shown more foresight, and would have acted more in the public interest, had it assisted the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in 1881 with a loan rather than with the enormous cash subsidy we gave it. The fact is that at present, if the Canadian Pacific railway is suffering from anything, it is from a plethora of wealth. We have subsidized the Canadian Pacific Railway Company lavishly. I do not say that by way of recrimination; it may be, and I believe it is so, that at that time the Canadian Pacific railway would not have been built had it not been for the extravagant terms we gave to the company. But now that we have before us Sir WILFRID LA DRIER.
the result of the operations of The Canadian Pacific railway, we see that it would have been far better in the public interest had we done as the United States did in the case of the Union Pacific, namely, lent the credit of the Government to that enterprise instead of giving it a cash subsidy. To-day the very wealth of the Canadian Pacific railway is, I will not say a danger, but an obstacle in the way of the adjustment of freight rates on the roads of other companies. It is easy to be wise after the event; I do not recriminate; but if in 1881 we had loaned to the Canadian Pacific railway $150,000,000 to carry on its enterprise, to-day the whole of that money could have been recouped, to the advantage of the company and of the Canadian people. We did not do so; but to-day we can learn a lesson and take heed, from our remissness in the past.
Instead of giving this cash .subsidy of $158,000,000 out of the treasury to the Canadian Northern, I ask my hon. friend why in the very next resolution on the Order PapeT he proposes to grant help to the Grand Trunk Pacific by way of a loan. What reason is there for giving a cash subsidy to the one railway and a loan to the other? Would not the public interest be better served if we followed the same rule in both cases? Would not the enterprise be benefited just as well if we were to loan to the Canadian Northern Company the $15,000,000 which it wants, just as we are loaning to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company the money it wants? Let me call the attention of the House to the resolution with respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for and to authorize an advance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by way of loan te the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of a sum not exceeding fifteen million dollars, for the purpose of assisting the company in completing the western division of its railway; such advance to be repayable with interest half-yearly at the rate of four per centum per annum, not later than July 1, 1923, the advance to be secured by debentures charged upon the western division of the company's railway, and upon the undertaking, equipment and property, rights and franchises of the company, ranking next after the debenture stock of the company issued or to be issued under chapter 100 of the Acts of 1906, and the Act respecting the company assented to on the seventh day of March, 1913, such debentures to be guaranteed, both as to principal and interest, by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
Let me ask now why, in giving aid to these two transcontinental railways, which are both in the process of construction, one mode of help is given to one and another mode of help is given to the other. What reason has. impelled the

Government to give a loan of $15,000,000 to one and a cash subsidy to the other?


Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: It is a very proper question, which my right hon. friend asks, and I am confident that the Government is able to make a reply which will satisfy this House and the people of this country. The policy of granting subsidies to railway companies, and especially to railway companies engaged in the task of building transcontinental lines, is not new. It is as old as Confederation and has been forced upon every government of this country by the facts and exigencies which have confronted us, principally owing to our geographical position and the extent and character of the country which must be traversed by the lines which bind Canada together from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Canada is divided into four parts. Political confederation would not have been possible except by binding together the isolated sections of Canada. That was recognized at the time of Confederation, and the Intercolonial had to be built in order to join up the maritime provinces with Quebec and Ontario. We have between the province of Ontario and the prairie provinces a stretch of about a thousand miles of almost barren wilderness that must be linked up by railway lines in order that the Ontario and the East may have access to the prairie provinces. Similarly, when you traverse the prairie provinces, you come to the great barrier of the Rocky mountains that shuts off the prairie provinces from British Columbia. The task that has been set to every government of Canada is how to provide transportation facilities for the people of Canada. We have an area in this Dominion the size of Europe. We have almost four thousand miles to traverse from coast to coast. We have to the south of us a republic from which our people have been shut off by a hostile tariff. Therefore the problem has been and is to-day, in a larger degree than anything else, the problem of transportation. That was felt at the period to which my right hon. friend refers, the period of the building of the Canadian Pacific line, which was heavily subsidized was built. That condition existed in 1903, and subsequently, when my right hon. friend inaugurated the great enterprises of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. That problem exists to-day with regard to all these lines, and any new lines that may be necessary in order to serve the requirerhents of the country.
My right hon. friend has spoken as if railway subsidies were an entirely new idea. No doubt most of us would agree that if we could avoid it, it would be inadvisable to give money to railway companies, no matter upon what terms, in consideration of their building railways. As a matter of
fact, the principle of railway subsidies is as old as Canada and it is with us to-day. My right hon. friend had to deal with it with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and in the numerous subsidy Bills which he has brought down. I am surprised that he should express the views that he has put forward to-day as to the propriety of giving railway subsidies, especially in connection with transcontinental lines. They are not ordinary lines; they have to be built, as I have said, along the north shore of lake Superior and through the Rocky mountains where the cost of construction is immense, so that no railway company could be expected to build those lines without substantial assistance from the Government of Canada.
Let me take up by way of illustration the different transcontinental lines that have been subsidized and assisted, and that have built their lines from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In the first place, take the Canadian Pacific railway, and I agree with my right hon. friend that conditions are different now. There were difficulties in the way of getting supplies for the building of the Canadian Pacific railway. If that is so in the West, so far as the East is concerned the cost of building transcontinental lines has increased enormously since the time when the Canadian Pacific railway was built. It is a fair setoff, one against the other. The difficulties of the Rocky mountains are the same now as they were then. So far as eastern Ontario and Quebec are concerned, we all know the cost of building railway lines has increased enormously. The cost of acquiring railway terminals runs into tremendous sums. This is common knowledge. What did the Canadian Pacific railway get? They got $25,000,000 in cash; they got 25,000,000 acres of land which have turned out to be worth a greater sum than the capital stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I shall not take it on the basis of to-day's value; I shall deal with it on the basis at which it was deemed proper it should be taken at that time. The 25,000,000 acres of land were stated to be worth from $1 to $1.50 an acre. With the development of this land, which has been brought about not only by the Canadian Pacific railway, but by all these other railway companies which have been built, it has turned out to be worth a sum in excess of $250,000,000. What else did they get? They got in addition to that 700 miles of completed line of railway from Prince Arthur's landing to a point west of Winnipeg, 500 miles; and from Port Moody east thmugh the Fraser canyon, 200 miles. They got all these grants from the Dominion Government in consideration of their undertaking to build the line. What would that subsidy amount to at that time? It is the very opposite of

a mile was given to this company in respect of its line from Toronto to Sudbury1 to connect with the main line. The Canadian Northern Railway Company applied for a subsidy and not for a loan, for the reasons I have mentioned. In addition to the enormous sums of money which private enterprise has supplied, the Government steps in and does, not something new, not something novel, but something which the Government of Canada has always been obliged to do, namely, contribute from the Dominion funds by way of subsidies, the consideration to the Dominion being the advantage which will accrue to the people of Canada by the construction of a transcontinental line. I think there has been a misconception on the part of my right hon. friend, or rather he has not turned his mind upon the matter. I must say he does not misconceive very many things; he is exceedingly well posted with regard to every aspect of Canadian affairs, but I think he has failed to recognize the enormous project which the Canadian Northern Railway Company has in hand, and how much that project means to the people of Canada.
The Canadian Northern railway system is divided into two sections. The western -section extends from Port Arthur to Edmonton, and comprises the network of lines in the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. They have a line running from Winnipeg to Duluth, carrying the grain of the West to that port. The Canadian Northern Railway Company carries between thirty and forty per cent of the grain of the West. Under their enterprising president and vice-president they have built or acquired over a mile of railway a day since 1898. Fifteen thousand men are engaged on the Canadian Northern railr way construction, and twenty-five thousand in connection with the operation of the line. They have forty-five hundred miles of railway in the West, and eighteen hundred miles of railway in the East. The eastern division consists of the Canadian Northern Ontario and the Canadian Northern Quebec railways, the Canadian Northi-ern Ontario comprising the line running from Toronto to Sudbury, the proposed line from Toronto to Ottawa, the line from Ottawa to Montreal, and the proposed line to the Niagara frontier from Toronto. In Quebec the Canadian Northern has acquired the Great Northern and the Quebec and St. John railway, and has linked up the cities of Quebec and Montreal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the intention to link up with the Quebec and Saguenay railway?


William Thomas White: I am entirely unable to answer my hon. friend; I have no knowledge of the matter to which he refers. We Mr. WHITE (Leeds!
are speaking now of the linking up of the city of Quebec with Vancouver, because that is the project of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. As I have said the Canadian Northern Railway Company plays an important part in the transportation problems of the Dominion. It must be borne in mind that we are dealing with subsidies in respect of the main line between Ottawa and Port Arthur, Edmonton and Summit, and Toronto and Ottawa. We are dealing with the main line only. It must be thoroughly borne in mind at the outset, that what we are doing is giving a subsidy in conformity with the policy that has always obtained, a subsidy to a main transcontinental line.	,
As I have said, the Canadian Northern railway have done a very great deal of development work in the Canadian Northwest. My hon. friend knows as well as anyone what a part they played in settling the Saskatchewan valley, in bringing in immigration from United States and from Great Britain. Then they have, in addition to the Canadian Northern itself, various other lines, for instance, the Royal Steamship line, which is a subsidiary company, its bonds and stocks owned by the Canadian (Northern railway. Similarly they have terminal elevators at Port Arthur, and numerous other subsidiary enterprises, telegraph and express companies, all owned by the Canadian Northern railway in connection with their enterprise from East to West. It has been frequently said in public, and I only refer to this fact in order to remove any misconception, that the Canadian Northern has really built its line out of provincial and Dominion guarantees.
In passing, let me say that, so far as a guarantee is concerned-and I quote the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) as to this on numerous occasions -the liability is contingent; the Dominion lends its credit to a railway company. My hon. friends opposite have said on various occasions that it was not expected at all that the Government would be called upon to pay under those guarantees; a guarantee is a contingent liability, the company asks the Dominion to lend it its credit and in connection with a transcontinental line, which properly comes within Dominion jurisdiction and serves the purpose of the entire Dominion. I take no exception, speaking for myself, to the principle of giving Dominion aid by way of guarantee, provided that it is properly secured, and provided it can be shown that it is in the interest of the people of the Dominion as a whole that it should be done, and that a powerful railway company or group are prepared to build and operate a railway line which will inure to the benefit of the people of Canada.

Let me refer to the cost of the Canadian Northern system. I looked into it not long ago because, as Minister of Finance, I felt that I was interested in these matters when granting subsidies to the Canadian Northern, just as I was interested in the loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific. I find that the entire cost of the Canadian Northern system, the parent company and the eastern division, comprising the railways I have mentioned, is no less a sum than $265,000,000 to date. That is the cost of the Canadian Northern railway system. Securities guaranteed by Government, Dominion and provincial, of which I can furnish details, have been issued to the extent of $120,000,000, that is securities which provided $120,000,000, and the Canadian Northern Railway Company, by the issue of their own securities, their perpetual debenture stock, land grant and other bonds, have made issues that have realized $145,000,000, principally of English money. The guarantee of securities by the Dominion and, by the provinces to the extent
of $120,000,000 was a most valuable aid, but, as I have pointed out, this liability of the Dominion and of the provinces is contingent, it is not direct, and therefore, so long as the Canadian Northern as a going concern is able to pay its interest, the Dominion will not be called upon and cannot be called upon to pay any part of the interest; the Dominion has loaned its credit only.
Mr. MACDONALD. That does not include subsidies?


William Thomas White: No, there are no subsidies on the main line.
Mr. MACDONALD. It would be advisable to have the amount raised for the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway, the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway, and other provincial lines. In order intelligently to understand the figures the minister is giving, it would be of interest to know the extent of mileage and what companies own the different mileages to which this applies.


William Thomas White: Synopsis.
Guaranteed by-
Dominion of	Canada	$37,216,664	66Ontario	
7j860,i000	00British Columbia	
16,496,000	00Manitoba	
349,000	00Total .guaranteed	
$61,915,664 66 Not guaranteed	
32,808,283 00

The merged statement is what my hon. friend would like. It is as follows:-
Canadian Northern Kailway and Affiliated Lines-'Merged Statement.
Guaranteed by-
Dominion of Canada .. $58,043,250 Province of Manitoba.. 24,110,546 Province of Saskatchewan	 8,030,000
Province of Alberta ..	5,586,665
Province of British Columbia	 16,490,000
Province of Ontario ..	7,860,000
Grand total of guaranteed securities . ,$120;120,461

Securities not Guaranteed.
Canadian Northern-
4 p. c. debenture stock..$48,484,380
Income stock	,25,000,000
Equipment bonds	 32,086,488
Land grant bonds .. .. 7,000,000 Ontario 4 per cent debenture stock	 11,473,641
Quebec debenture 6tock. 5,814,560
Quebec bonds	 3,505,750
Western railway 4 per
cent bonds	 2,800,000
Duluth, Winnipeg and
Pacific bonds	 6,537,666
Canadian Northern Montreal Tunnel and Terminal .. .. ;	 2,676,666
Total securities not guaranteed. .$145,379,151
Grand total of securities outstanding	$265,499,6112


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Can the minister
give us the amount of subsidies that have been paid?


William Thomas White: I have that next in order. I will give a complete statement. As I pointed out, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company received cash subsidies-I am not comparing that time with the present, but am simply calling attention to the policy which prevailed then, and which has prevailed since-the Canadian Pacific Railway Company received subsidies if the lands are estimated at the low value of $1 and $1.50 an acre, of from $25,000 to $30,000 per mile. The subsidies that have been granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific, as I have already mentioned, were interest for seven years upon the construction of the eastern division of the Northerri Transcontinental railway, and interest for seven Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
years upon the Mountain Section. Now then, what has the Canadian Northern railway received by way of subsidies as I have stated? That railway constitutes one-fourth of the entire mileage of railways in operation in Canada; moves over thirty per cent of the western crop to the Atlantic seaboard, and carries its principal line from Quebec through the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, along the stretch of the north shore, through Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, across the summit and down to Vancouver on the Pacific coast.


Wilfrid Laurier: Thq subsidies from Quebec westward?


William Thomas White: I am dealing only with the main line subsidies, because I have not any figures as to the Quebec part.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend mentioned Quebec.


William Thomas White: I will see if I can obtain those figures later, but meantime I am dealing with the main line between Montreal and Port Arthur.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is all
right.


William Thomas White: 
Mr. GRAHAM:: To Prince Rupert is
only 3,500 miles.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is quite
correct. I was referring to the lines of the system in the West, the lines that were in operation in the prairie provinces. The total then is 1,600 miles complete and in operation, that is of the Transcontinental line which is now being made the subject of the grant of subsidies by the Dominion Government. Under construction, we have from Ottawa 'to Port Arthur 900 miles; from Edmonton to Yellowhead pass 260 miles; and from the Yellowhead pass to Vancouver 525 miles, a total of 1,695 miles.
11714

The contracts call for the completion of the line by the end of this year, 1913, and it is estimated that by the summer of next year, if the same conditions prevail as have prevailed as to labour, the Canadian Northern Railway Company will be running trains across the continent from Quebec to the Pacific coast. At all events that is what they have in view, what they hope and expect. Now, what is the assistance that has been received on this main line, because I shall centre my attention on the main line. I have shown, I think to the satisfaction of the House, that no transcontinental line, either in the remote past or in the recent past, has been, or could be built in this country without Dominion subsidies. As I have said, we may theoretically object to subsidies, but we are confronted with a condition, and not a theory. My right hon. friend was unable to project a transcontinental railway across this continent without granting vast subsidies, giving immense guarantees, and making large loans, and if that had to be done in 1903 and 1909, I do not think that the situation has materially changed to-day. What has been the assistance given to the Canadian Northern Railway Company in respect to their transcontinental line? I desire the House to fix its attention on the Transcontinental line only. From Montreal to Port Arthur there are 1,025 miles, and a Dominion guarantee of $35,000 per mile was given by the Government of my right hon. friend. I think it was estimated by the hon. member for South Renfrew, then Minister of Railways, that that section was to cost from $50,000 to $55,000 a mile to complete and equip. I think ' Hansard ' will show that-; if I am wrong he will correct me.


George Perry Graham: It was in that vicinity.


William Thomas White: On the recommendation of my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), the Government of my right hon. friend introduced legislation whereby the bonds of the Canadian Northern Ontario Company-because that is the only company that owns the line-were guaranteed to the extent of $35,000 per mile, the line, as I have said, costing, on the estimate of the then Minister of Railways, from $50,000 to $55,000 a mile. The proceeds of that guarantee-because the three and one-half per cent stock did not sell at par-was $31,762 per mile, so that to make it perfectly plain, the line, which, on the estimate of my hon. friend, would cost from $50,000 to $55,000 per mile, received a Dominion guarantee which produced $31,000 per mile, leaving $24,000 per mile to be raised by the promoters of the road and $24,000 per mile for a thousand miles is $24,000, a vast sum. I want to give the figures fully and frankly. They received from the Ontario Government a land grant of 4,000 acres per mile, amounting to
2,000,000 acres for the line from Selwood to Port Arthur. That land may become valuable, and I have no doubt it will, but it has not assisted them in the construction of their line, and in the nature of things it could not, because'it is not yet open to settlement.
Let me add one thing more-because it is precisely analagous to what we are doing to-day. The Government of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)-I desire to be corrected if I am in error-gave the Canadian Northern in respect to the line between Ottawa and Montreal $6,400 per mile by way of subsidy.


George Perry Graham: To be absolutely correct the amount from Hawkesbury to Montreal was allowed to lapse by arrangement. The subsidy was paid from Ottawa to Hawkesbury, I think.


William Thomas White: I want to see what the
Government of my right hon. friend did. A subsidy was granted to the line between Ottawa and Hawkesbury and I think from Hawkesbury to Montreal, but whether it lapsed or not it was granted. Then, the Government of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, gave a guarantee of $35,000 per mile upon 1,025 miles from Montreal to Port Arthur. On the line between Port Arthur and Winnipeg, 438 miles, the Government of Manitoba gave guarantees to a total amount of $6,700,000. I do not believe there is any Dominion guarantee with respect to that line. A subsidy -was given to the Port Arthur and Rainy River Railway Company, which was acquired by the Canadian Northern, as follows: Stanley to Fort Frances, $1,355,000; Fort Frances to Rainy River, $179,000; or a total of about one and a half million dollars. From Rainy River to Winnipeg no subsidy was granted and no Dominion guarantee given; and the House will observe we are not proposing any subsidy in respect to that line, which has been in operation for some years. Then, on the line between Grand View and Edmonton, 750 miles, the Government of my right hon. friend gave guarantees as to a portion of it at the rate of $10,000 per mile, and as to another portion of it $13,000 per mile; so that the total Dominion Government guarantee from Grand View to Edmonton is in the neighbourhood of about $8,000,000.


Mr. BENNETT (Calgary):: From Grand View to Edmonton was the Dominion subsidy.


William Thomas White: At all events, the total of the Dominion guarantee here was something like $8,000,000. Then, the Government of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in respect to the road from Edmonton to Yellowhead gave a subsidy of

$13,000 a mile for fifty miles; $25,000 a mile for one hundred miles; and $35,000 a mile for one hundred and two miles; making the total proceeds about $6,000,000. The Canadian Northern Pacific is the line extending for five hundred and twenty-five miles from the summit of the Rockies to the Pacific coast, and on that, as the right hon. gentleman has pointed out, the Government of British Columbia has given a guarantee at the rate of $35,000 per mile and this Parliament last session gave a subsidy of $12,000 per mile; making a total of $6,000,000 by way of Dominion subsidy to that line.
Prom Ottawa to Toronto, 250 miles, the estimated cost is, I think, about $41,000 per mile, and no guarantee and no subsidy has been given in respect to that line. I desire to point out the difference between the case of the Canadian Northern railway and the older lines which have become entrenched in the Eastern provinces and have acquired rights-of-way and terminals at an early date and at much less expense than the Canadian Northern can. because we all know that the cost of terminals in ereat cities, and the cost of a right-of-way through populous provinces is enormous. We now propose to give a subsidy of $6,400 per mile, which is the ordinary subsidy, on the line running between Ottawa and Toronto. The total guarantees in respect of the lines I have mentioned, namely, the line from Montreal to Port Arthur, the line from Port Arthur to Winnipeg, the line from Winnipeg to Edmonton, the line from Edmonton to the summit of the Rockies, and thence to Vancouver, amount to $57,000,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: I thought mv hon. friend said $120,000,000.


William Thomas White: No. that is for the whole system. I was careful to say that, as we are giving subsidies on the Transcontinental line, I am now directing the attention of the House particularly to the Transcontinental line, and therefore I am stating that the guarantee given with respect to the line from Montreal to Yellowhead. is $57.000,000, as I have it here, or $50,000,000, as the Minister of Railways has it: but I will be liberal and call it $57,000,000, as I have figured it out at that.
The distance from Montreal, as I have it. to the Yellowhead pass is 2,700 miles, and the guarantee averages $20,000 per mile. I have shown what the guarantee per mile amounted to in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Let us see now what subsidies have been given to the Canadian Northern in comparison to subsidies given to the Canadian Pacific railway and to the Grand Trunk Pacific in respect of the construction of that line.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the minister be good enough to give us a statement of Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
the total amount of guarantee for all purposes to the Canadian Northern, which I understood to be in the vicinity of $122,000.000, in order that we may have the full information as to what governmental assistance or subventions have gone to this whole enterprise? Can he give us the amount of subsidies voted, covering the whole system and the amount actually earned?


William Thomas White: The subsidies with which
I am dealing now are the subsidies given by the Dominion for the main line.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Quite so.


William Thomas White: I have not spoken at
present about the subsidies given by any province, but I do not believe any province has given anything except the land grant from Selwood to Port Arthur to the Transcontinental line. I shall endeavour to obtain that information a little later on. I think the Minister of Railways has it here.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend desires to give a complete statement of what assistance this country has given to the enterprise, he should give the information as to the amount of the subsidies that have actually been voted or earned covering the whole system.


William Thomas White: I propose to give the subsidies at this particular time in respect of the line with which we are dealing, namely, the transcontinental line of the Canadian Northern, because my argument is that the Dominion Government is following out the ordinary policy, and is amply justified in granting these subsidies to the Canadian Northern in respect only of its transcontinental line.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In making the comparison along the lines on which the hon. minister is proceeding, he is not making an argument that is illuminative, because, in dealing with the Canadian Pacific railway, he is dealing with an enterprise that started as a transcontinental line. The Canadian Northern railway has developed its enterprise by successively linking up various local lines in different places. My hon. friend is proposing to carve out of all these lines what he calls a transcontinental railway, and is giving subventions for some of them. He mu'st give the total amount of subventions in addition to the guarantees.


William Thomas White: That would be very pertinent to a discussion as to the branch lines in the several provinces. If I had thought my hon. friend would require it, I would have had it here.
My hon. friend is hardly making a fair statement when he says that the Canadian

Pacific railway went on and developed its enterprise. It is true that it did; but, what I dealt with when I was discussing the matter of aid given to the Canadian Pacific railway, was the aid that was given to it in Tespect of its main lines. When I discussed the Grand Trunk Pacific, I discussed and gave figures only in respect of its main line from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert. I did not give any figures as to the Grand Trunk Pacific lines through Saskatchewan and Alberta. I instituted a perfectly fair comparison between the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern main lines.


Wilfrid Laurier: What was my hon. friend's object in giving the guaranteed subsidies to this line?


William Thomas White: There has been a great
deal said along the line that the Canadian Northern has built all its lines with Dominion or provincial help. The reason I put that merged statement on the table was to show not only the character of the enterprise as to vastness and cost, but the amount of money that had been raised by the Canadian Northern Railway Company itself in respect to securities issued by it.


Wilfrid Laurier: The statement was not complete. In order to have a complete statement, we should have the cash subsidies given to the enterprise everywhere.


William Thomas White: That would be true with regard to the system as a whole; it would not interfere with the fact that the Canadian Northern Railway Company had raised $150,000,000 on the strength of its own securities.


William Manley German: That applies to the whole system.


William Thomas White: I am stating that.


William Manley German: Then why not give the subventions to the whole system ?


William Thomas White: There is no reason why I should not do so, if it were pertinent to my argument, but it is not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The information is inaccurate without it.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend the Minister of Railways tells me he will give it in a moment. I do not want the House to get away from the comparison I have instituted between the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern railway. I am laying down the principle that private enterprises cannot build transcontinental lines of a national character, having regard to the physical difficulties that they will encounter and the cost of construction in this country unless they receive, as they
have always done, a measure of aid from the Government.


Wilfrid Laurier: So far so good. We do not dispute that. My hon. friend started to give the House, in order to reply, as he said, to certain surmises or allegations, the whole of the assets which have come to that enterprise. He put down guaranteed subsidies at $120,000,000, unguaranteed subsidies at $145,000,000. His object was to give the whole assets of the company. If he wants to do that, he should also give the cash subsidies which the company had received.


William Thomas White: They will have to be tabulated. I think my right hon. friend is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Sir WILFRID L.AURIER: My hon. friend stated that he would give us the assets of the company. He should give the whole or nothing at all, if he is to make a fair comparison between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend does not follow me. I am making an argument as to the main line, not on the merged statement. I did not volunteer that information; my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) asked for it, and I gave it in a general way, just as I generally described the Canadian Northern railway, in order that the House might understand what a vast system it was in the matter of transportation in this country. 1 propose to continue the comparison of the line in respect of those portions of the system which are transcontinental in their character.
As I said when I was asked some questions by hon. gentlemen opposite, the total guarantees on 2,700 miles lay the Dominion and the provinces is $20,000 a mile in respect of the transcontinental line from Montreal to Port Arthur, from Port Arthur to Edmonton, from Edmonton to Vancouver, and from Ottawa to Toronto.
We now come to the land grants. It has been suggested that the Canadian Northern railway received vast land grants from the Dominion. As my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has said, they received no land grants direct from the Dominion. In 1897, 1898, and I think in 1899, they purchased the charters of three railways which had obtained, in some oases ten years previously and I think none later than 1890, certain land grants from the Dominion Government in consideration of building those lines. Therefore the Canadian Northern Railway Company received no lands grants itself from the Dominion of Canada.
They bought the charters of lines which had been granted ten years before in some cases, carrying grants of lands in Manitoba from the Dominion Government in

consideration of building their lines. The companies had failed to carry out their enterprises and earn the land grants. The Canadian Northern railway took these over, built the lines and in that way earned the land grants. So it cannot be said that the Canadian Northern railway received any land grant from the Dominion Government. Now, my hon. friend from Welland, (Mr. German) seems quite jocular over it, tout I fancy that if he had bought these railway charters, and had taken over their covenants, he would have thought that he had secured these land grants by purchase and not by grant from the Dominion Government. Once the charter is granted with the land grant attached, it is a question outside of Parliament, and if another railway company or anybody else acquires it and carries out the covenant, the land grants are gained by purchase.


Wilfrid Laurier: How much
were they?


William Thomas White: I think about four and a
half million acres. The right hon. gentleman knows all about this matter, because they were dealt with under his regime, and I never heard that he questioned the transactions.
Now we come to the question of subsidy. I desire to make a fair statement on that subject to the House. A subsidy of $12,000 a mile is granted on the line from Ottawa to Port Arthur. No subsidy is granted from Montreal to Ottawa, because, as I pointed out, the Government of my right hon. friend gave a suhsidy with regard to that part of the line. Now, a subsidy of $12,000 a mile is unusually large having regard to what is ordinarily given. But it is not unprecedentedly large, nor do I believe that, having regard to the cost of construction estimated by my hon. friend from South Renfrew on the line between Montreal and Port Arthur, which is $55,000 a mile, it would strike one as an unreasonable subsidy. It is considerably in excess of the $6,400 a mile which is the maximum ordinarily granted, tout it is not larger than has been granted. You have an immense stretch of land along the north shore of Lake Superior, the cost of construction over which will be very great. You have in addition the cost of rights of way in Ontario, and also the cost of terminals. I have gone into this matter in order to inform myself as much as possible, and I find that the cost of terminals for this transcontinental line in the several cities is estimated to be $40,000,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What will be the cost of the line from Ottawa to Montreal?


William Thomas White: I am not sure. They are building a tunnel at Montreal, but that, no doubt, will be partly paid for by the Mr. WHITE (Leeds).	>
increased valua which the tunnel will give to the lands that they have acquired. But the cost of that does not enter into the present argument. I have said that this subsidy of $12,000 a mile is not unprecedented. If my memory serves_ me correctly, the Government of my right hon. friend gave a subsidy of $11,000 a mile in respect of a line from Lethbridge through the Crow's Nest pass to Nelson. Last session we gave a subsidy of $12,000 a mile on a more expensive construction through British Columbia. I think that the Canadian Central, between Pembroke and Callender, received $12,000 a mile. According to our ordinary way of doing things, if a line is built costing over $25,000 a mile, a subsidy of $6,400 is given-which is about twenty-five per cent. In connection with a line costing $18,000 the subsidy is $2,300-my hon. friend from South Renfrew will correct me if I am wrong. So, it would appear that from twenty to twenty-five per cent is given as subsidy in respect of lines as ordinarily built. But the phenomena of recent times so far as Tailway construction is concerned have been the enormous cost of building through the old settled parts of Canada, owing to the increased cost of rights of way and of terminals. As we all know, land in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria and other places, has doubled, trebled, quadrupled in some cases, in the last five or ten years. We know the enormous cost of acquiring terminals in these cities. Therefore, a subsidy in excess of $6,400 a mile is not unreasonable for a transcontinental line. 1 have a statement here of the total subsidies received in respect of the main line of the Canadian "Northern railway from Quebec to Vancouver. It shows total subsidies of $8,000,000, of which $5,000,000 has been received. Now, I ask hon. members to compare this with the figures I gave. And let it be remembered that this includes $6,000,000 from Summit down. The Canadian Northern railway, in respect of its lines east of the Rocky mountains, has received almost nothing by way of subsidies on the main line, and it is the main line I am dealing with, because it is to the main line that we are giving these subsidies. No subsidy has been given from Ottawa to Port Arthur; none from Ottawa to Toronto; none from Winnipeg to Edmonton; none from Edmonton to Summit. And no subsidy has been given this line from Port Arthur to Winnipeg, except a small amount in respect of the line from Port Arthur to Rainy River.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon.
minister says that the line from Quebec to Summit has received only $8,000,000 of subsidy, and has stated the portions of

road over which subsidies have not been given. Will he state the portions of the road that have been subsidized to the amount of $8,000,000?


William Thomas White: From Ottawa to Hawkesbury, a subsidy of $367,000. My hon. friend has asked me for a statement of the portions of the lines that have not previously been subsidized. I will take them up alternately. Ottawa to Port Arthur, 900 miles, no subsidy. It is in respect of those portions of the line to which no subsidies have previously been applied that we are now giving subsidies. Stanley to Fort Frances, subsidies granted, $1,355,000. Stanley is a short distance outside of Port Arthur. Fort Frances to Rainy River, subsidies of $179,000. Winnipeg to Yellowhead, no subsidies.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are the
4,000,000 acres of land.


William Thomas White: The 4,000.000 acres of land were acquired from the Winnipeg and Hudson Bay Railway Company, the Lake Manitoba Railway and Canal Company, and the Manitoba and Southeastern Railwav Company. The Canadian Northern Railway Company purchased those lands, fust as my right hon. friend might have done himself.


Frank Oliver: The last sum mentioned is for that portion of the road from Winnipeg southerly to the lake of the Woods.


William Thomas White: I have no doubt mv hon. friend is right; at all events I am dealing now with cash subsidies in the ordinary sense. Subsidies in respect of the line from Y-ellowhead pass to Vancouver were granted at the last session of Parliament to the amount of $6,186,000. These amounts, together with a small subsidy in respect of the line between Montreal and Quebec, make up the $8,000,000 which I have mentioned as being the total amount of cash subsidies paid in respect of the Transcontinental line from Quebec to Vancouver.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mv impression was that the subsidy from Quebec to Montreal was a very generous one.


William Thomas White: $1,194,000. We are considering resolutions to-day under which the Government proposes to grant subsidies in respect of sections of the Transcontinental line of the Canadian Northern with reeard to which no subsidies have up to date been granted. From Ottawa to Port Arthur, no subsidies were granted; Edmonton to Summit, no subsidies; Toronto to Ottawa, no subsidies; Winnipeg to Port Arthur, subsidies to the amount of $1,500,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the minister
put any valuation on the 4,000,000 acres of land?


Francis Cochrane: Only 1,250,000 acres of land apply to the main line.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister spoke about 4,000,000 acres of land, and I understood him to decline when the hon. leader of the Opposition asked him to speak about that in connection with the argument he was making. The Minister of Railways said that a million and a Quarter acres of that
4,000,000 should be allotted to the main line. What valuation does the minister put on the 4,000,000 acres?


William Thomas White: I think I can give my
hon. friend some information with regard to that, but it may not be as definite as he desires. As I have pointed out, the Canadian Northern Railway Company acquired from these three lines in Manitoba the land grants to which they were entitled upon carrying out their undertakings with the Government in respect of the construction of their lines. ^ In 1898, 1899 and 1900 the price of land in the West was very different from what it is to-day. I will give my hon. friend an experience I had that will, I think, be very ilhiminating to him with regard to these very lands which he has in mind. In 1899 the Canadian Northern Railway Company made what was called a land grant bond issue; they issued bonds to expend $2,000,000 secured upon 1,365,000 acres of land. That is at the rate of $1.50 an acre, supposed to .represent fifty per cent of the value of these lands. Sales were made at $4, $5, and $6 an acre of the substantial portion of that 1,365,000 acres, and the balance of the 4,000,000 acres to which I have referred, and which was acquired from the railway .companies I have mentioned, was sold at $8, $9, $10, and probably is now selling at $15 an acre. It is therefore impossible for me to state with any great accuracy what these lands are worth, because some of them have not yet been sold. I believe ithat the comparatively .small amount sold last year realized something like $15 an acre. The hon. member for Calgary, who I have no doubt is well informed, tells me that at the time of the sale the lands were worth about $4 an acre. I know however that for the purposes of this land grant mortgage, $3 an acre was estimated to be their value, and the land grant mortgage made by the Canadian Northern and secured by this 1,365,000 acres of land was on the basis of about $1.50 an acre, representing fifty per cent of their estimated value at that time. They call them prairie lands.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How long ago was
that?


William Thomas White: It was in 1899. A railway company, generally speaking, must sell; they are not like the ordinary holder of land, because the object of the railway company is to get the land settled in order to obtain the traffic. Their efforts are directed



at colonization, and we know the success that has attended the great work done by the Canadian Northern railway in connection with the colonization of the Saskatchewan valley and the West generally.
Now, I come to a particular transaction that seems unusual, but I think it marks a very forward advance in connection with the granting of subsidies of this kind. I say frankly that the amount granted on account of tfhe large cost of construction, the increase in the cost of labour, and material, $12,000 a mile was large as compared with the usual and ordinary subsidy of $6,400 a mile. The Government, having regard to the cost of these lines and to the large sums of money that have still to be raised by the railway company in order that the entire transcontinental line may be ultimately built, as shown by the figures submitted by the Minister of Railways, felt justified in granting favourable consideration to the application of the Canadian Northern railway in respect to the subsidies, which are confined, as I have said, to the main line, and do not extend to the lines in the several provinces. But as it was unusual in amount and distinguishable even from the subsidy which last year was given in respect of the line between Summit and Vancouver, running through the Rocky mountains, and costing $70,000 or $80,000 a mile as compared with $50,000 or $55,000 estimated by the hon. member for South Renfrew in respect of the line between Ottawa and Port Arthur the Government took the position that they should receive some consideration of a substantial character from the Canadian Northern Railway Company. I shall point out to the House that in conection with these subsidies., legislation was introduced some time ago or the provision embodied in subsidy bills, I am not quite sure which, under which three per cent upon the amount of subsidy given to a railway is deducted from the amount earned by the railways for the carrying, of the mails. Therefore, when subsidies are given to railway companies, the Dominion Government, while giving the subsidy, on the other hand receive back three per cent on that amount, this sum being deducted from the amount earned by the railway company in respect of the carriage of mail. That is embodied in this Bill to the extent of the $6,400 per mile which is the usual and ordinary subsidy. I desire to point out in this connection that the Canadian Northern railway is at a disadvantage in comparison with other transcontinental lines with which it is in competition and which had constructed their lines of railways and received subsidies prior to the time when this policy was put into effect and therefore I think it is reasonable that the three per cent should Mr. WHITE (Leeds).	,
be charged only on the $6,400 a mile, especially in view of the consideration which we are receiving from the Canadian Northern and which, in my judgment, marks a distinct advance upon the policy hitherto adopted in regard to subsidizing these roads. The Government said: As a consideration from the Canadian Northern Railway Company, having regard to these subsidies, justifiable as we believe in themselves but exceeding the amount usually granted, we desire to obtain a certain portion of the common stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. That appeals to me as advanced and sound legislation. If the Governor in Council had received a block of stock of the Canadian Pacific railway in the earlier days it would have been a most valuable asset to the Dominion to-day and therefore it seems to me to be proper and good policy that, as we gave a large subsidy to the Canadian Northern railway, we should receive from the Canadian Northern railway a block' of their common stock so that in the event of that Tailway succeeding as the Canadian Pacific railway succeeded or even in less measure-and I am sure everyone hopes it will succeed-then the Dominion of Canada will have a valuable asset in the stock of that, road. We have obtained from the Canadian Northern Railway Company, 70,000 shares of the par value of $7,000,000 of the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. The question naturally arises, what is the value of that stock? The Minister of Railways has indicated that it is of indeterminate value. At the same time, it has been, deemed of very considerable value. Personally, I have known of transactions, few in number, in excess of forty dollars a share. I find by their statement of earnings that the balance of the credit of income account in the statement as of June 30, 1912, is about $6,000,000. That is the accumulated profit since the road has been in operation. I may say that there is $25,000,000 of common stock of the $70,000,000 issued by the Canadian Northern railway that is held in trust to be availed of, if they so elect, by the holders of the income charge convertible debenture stock outstanding. In other words, the holders of that stock have the right to take at par this $25,000,000 of Canadian Northern railway stock. The stock we are taking is the stock of the parent organization, that is, of the company which controls 4.500 miles o.f road in the Northwest from Port Arthur to Edmonton.


Mr. McCURDY:: Is this $25,000,000-
which was reserved to meet the convertible bonds in addition to the $70,000,000?


William Thomas White: The $70,000,000 is the entire authorized issue, and if the holders of the income convertible stock elect to take a like amount at par of the Canadian

Northern stock them, to that extent, the $25,000,000 shares will be in the hands of people who have paid $100 a share for them or who may be the holders of income convertible debenture stock.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: And the Government
will be the owners of practically one-sixth of the stock.	[DOT]


William Thomas White: Yets. Therefore, taking
the whole capital stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, which controls 4,500 miles in the West, and owning, I believe, the Canadian Northern Quebec system, and affiliated with the other systems with the ultimate idea of amalgamating them all into a system extending over the continent, the Dominion owns one-tenth of that stock.


William Manley German: The $25,000,000 is held
by the Canadian Northern railway; it has not been issued to anyone?


William Thomas White: It is in trust.


William Manley German: Has the balance of the $70,000,000 been issued?


William Thomas White: I am unable to say, but I believe the balance of the issue has been issued, it is reported as issued.


William Manley German: And for what consideration and to whom?


William Thomas White: I am unable to say. I shall deal with that in a few moments. The general report is that the balance of the stock of the Canadian Northern railway has been issued to the contracting firm of Mackenzie and Mann and Company in consideration of their agreeing to build the line for that and other considerations, and I suppose for financing the enterprise to its present degree.


William Manley German: The contracting firm have been paid in cash for building the line.


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend will be patient I will come to that, and I think I can explain it in a manner that will be satisfactory to my hon. friend.


William Manley German: If it is satisfactory to
my hon. friend it will be satisfactory to me.


Mr. MURPHY:: How did the number of shares come to be fixed at 70,000?


William Thomas White: By legislation of this Parliament. The $70,000,000 is the authorized stock of the parent company under legislation of this Parliament, one-tenth of which the Government acquires in consideration of a subsidy which is above the ordinary, but which, I believe, is justifiable, having	regard	to the factsI have laid	before	the House.
That is the position. I have no hesita-
370i
tion in saying that in the case of subsidies of such a character given to railways, and, I believe, necessarily, in order that they nay complete their line, it is only proper that the Government should take the step of saying we desire some consideration from you other than the consideration mentioned in the ordinary subsidy bill. Might I say that the Canadian Northern Ontario owns the securities of various subsidiary companies. I find in its annual statement a list of acquired securities of a very important character. There is the Minnesota and Ontario Bridge Company, the debenture stock and bonds of which it owns; the Minnesota and Manitoba railway, which had to be a separate line in Minnesota and the bonds and stock of which it owns; the Lake Superior Terminals Company, which has the elevators at Port Arthur, and the bonds and stock of which are owned by the Canadian Northern railway; the Canadian Northern Telegraph Company, the mortgage bonds and capital stock of which are owned by the Canadian Northern railway; the Winnipeg Land Company, limited, the Canadian Northern Coal and Ore Dock Company, the St. Boniface and Western Land Company, the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Company, whose line runs from Edmonton to Athabaska Landing, and whose first mortgage bonds and stock are owned by the Canadian Northern railway; the Canadian Northern Prairie Lands Company,, the capital stock of which is owned by" the Canadian Northern railway, the Canadian Northern Railway Express Company, limited, the first mortgage bonds and capital stock of which are owned by the Canadian Northern railway; and the Canadian Northern Steamships, limited, the debenture stock and capital stock of which are owned by the Canadian Northern railway. That is the company which runs the Royal George and Royal Edward between Montreal and Bristol.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do they own any of the bonds or stock of the Canadian Northern Alberta Company?


William Thomas White: I think I can make this general statement-I tried to go into this matter fairly as Finance Minister. The Canadian Northern, as the parent company, owns I think the stock of the Canadian Northern Quebec, and I believe the Canadian Northern has guaranteed the debenture stock of that line. But part of the stock of the Canadian Northern Quebec is owned by the former holders of the stock of the Great Northern Railway Company, which was taken over by the Canadian Northern Quebec. The Canadian Northern Ontario, the parent company, does not own as yet the stock of the Canadian Northern Alberta Company; only

$250,000 of that stock has been issued, I think.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has the Canadian
Northern Alberta a provincial charter?


William Thomas White: I think it has a Dominion charter; at any rate, it is under Dominion jurisdiction, because the Government of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) guaranteed its bonds, and we extended 'the guarantee last year. I have dealt in a very general way, and I hope not in a tedious manner, -with a rather complicated question. The transaction that we propose is one of magnitude. The subsidies are large, but having regard to the transportation problems which confront this country, and having regard to the policy which prevailed in the past in respect to the Canadian Pacific railway and in more recent years in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific, I think that the Government has only aided to a fair and reasonable extent the construction of the transcontinental section of the Canadian Northern railway which plays such a part in the transportation problems of Canada to-day, and which is such a vast and costly enterprise.
My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) is looking at me wistfully or curiously. He has probably in mind the question which he put to me a little while ago. Let me make a sort of public confession of faith with regard to the question of the capitalization of railways. I am not going to criticise my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his Government. There is progress in this matter. There is progress in the United States as well as in Canada; but if I had any criticism to make of legislation in recent years in the United States or in Canada, with respect to the capitalization of railway companies, it would be this, that sufficient care is not taken to see that the capitalization is not an unduly large amount.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear


William Thomas White: Parliament and parliamentary committees are at a disadvantage in fixing the amount of the capitalization of a railway company. Too often legislation is put through authorizing bonding powers to the extent say of $30,000 or $40,000 a mile, and authorizing a large amount of capital stock, say of $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 without consideration or criticism. A portion of that stock may find its way into the hands of holders all over the world, and in time dividends are paid at 100 cents in the dollar. As I say, sufficient care is not exercised, and can hardly be exercised by Parliament in that regard. I look forward to the time when the Railway Commission would be charged with the duty of saying whether the canitalization of a railway comnanv was fair, and whether a certain Mr. WHITE (Leeds)
stock issue should be made. I am only giving or indicating my own views. My hon. friend (Mr. German) says that the stock of the Canadian Northern railway has not been paid up in cash. Possibly in part it may have been issued for services rendered in construction and otherwise in bringing the railway to its present condition of construction. It is, I believe, an undoubted fact in connection with that company that a considerable portion of the stock issued has not been paid full in cash. What has been done is done, so far as legislation is concerned. The Government of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has given to the Canadian Northern Ontario and to the other roads their charter powers so far as the issue of bonds and of stock is concerned. So far as our action with regard to this railway is concerned, I desire to make the general statement, which I have emphasized throughout my argument, that, having regard to the necessity, if Confedration is to hold together, for transportation facilities, and in accordance with the policy that Canada shall have abundant facilities and complete channels of communication between east and west for the movement of her crops and merchandise, the Government feels that it is abundantly justified, on the facts and information which I have presented to the House, in granting to the Canadian Northern Railway company the subsidies referred to in this resolution. That enterprise is one of great importance, one of the greatest in Canada.
I think I have given to the House full information as to that. It has been prosecuted with great enterprise and even daring by those who have been associated with it. It appeared to the Government, and I make the statement without any hesitation, that the aid now asked by way of subsidy is not unreasonable or out of accord with the policy pursued in days past with regard to the Canadian Pacific railway, and, in more recent years, with respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Under the circumstances, therefore, I think that the subsidies are justified. The Government has made a greater forward advance upon any policy in the past by reason of the fact that it has acquired, in respect of the larger subsidies, seventy thousand shares or one-tenth of the capital stock of the Canadian Northern Railway company.


William Manley German: My hon. friend says that $25,000,000 worth of the stock is held by the Canadian Northern in trust and $45,000,000, the balance of the stock, has been issued to Mackenzie & Mann or the contracting company. Out of which stock does the $7,000,000 come?


William Thomas White: The $7,000,000 could not

come out of the $25,000,000, because that is held in trust.


William Manley German: If Mackenzie & Mann
have earned $45,000,000, why give them $7,000,000 ?


William Thomas White: I am isure my hon. friend does not want to put words in my mouth that I did not use; I am not in a position to state that the balance of the stock has gone to Mackenzie & Mann. The stock is not listed in any exchange; there are very few holders of it, and its value at present is indeterminate. Whether the stock is valuable or not, and I think it is of considerable value, the Government has obtained one-tenth of the stock, and the $25,000,000 held in trust can only be devoted to the purposes of the trust. Let me put it this way: a railway company issues debenture stock which is different in character from capital stock, because it is an obligation of the company, and the purchasers of debenture stock are given a right within a certain number of years to surrender that stock for which they have paid the market value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of it sold as high as one hundred and six.


William Thomas White: The privilege is given the holders of that debenture stock to exchange for the capital stock up to 1916, the amount of debentures they had acquired. Therefore, $25,000,000 of the $70,000,000 is fixed with that trust, and it must be devoted to the purpose for which it was placed in trust.


William Manley German: Suppose it is not called on, what becomes of it ?


William Thomas White: It is in the treasury of the company. I am not in a position to say whether the balance of the stock has been issued to Mackenzie & Mann or mot. My view would be that if they are the contractors, it probably has been issued to them; but I draw no conclusion from that except that probably it was not paid in full in cash. That is to say, a certain proportion may have been paid by reason of the services rendered, but how much I am unable to say. The point I am making is, that the legislation under which the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company was fixed at $70,000,000, is the legislation of this Parliament, and the contracts under which that stock has been issued, are contracts which I have no doubt are valid under the law of the province in which they were made. It is open, of course, to say that it is unwise policy on the part of the Government to overcapitalize railway companies, and that regard should be had to the cost of the road. I concur in that view of my hon. 'riend (Mr. German); but I do not think
it touches the question I have been dealing with as to whether or not it is proper to extend this aid to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. By way of analogy, let me ask my hon. friend if he knows where the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific company is ?


William Manley German: I suppose it is held by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, because they guaranteed the whole enterprise.


William Thomas White: 
William Manley German: What has become of the stock of the Canadian Northern Ontario?


William Thomas White: I inquired as to that, and I do not believe it is issued. I am told that only $250,000 of it is issued. The cases are not analogous; the Canadian Northern has not guaranteed the securities of the Canadian Northern Ontario; they have financed with provincial Government guarantees, and in addition to that they have made a debenture stock issue of their own, not guaranteed by any railway company. So that, the parent company has not guaranteed the debenture stock of the

Canadian Northern Ontario Company, and I am told that only $250,000 of that stock is issued. When my hon. friend comes to deal with that, he will probably advert to the fact that the late Government granted the Canadian Northern Ontario its stockissuing power, and he will no doubt be able to tell us the amount of that stock, and why they were given power to issue stock to the amount of capitalization which they possessed.	*
I have made a longer speech than I intended, but my sole desire was to place before parliament and the country the information I have been able to acquire, in pursuance of my duties as Minister of Finance in connection with this transaction. In view of the information I have placed before the House, and the argument with which I have endeavoured to support it, I feel that the House and the country will say that the subsidies given to the Canadian Northern are fair and reasonable, having regard to the enterprise they have undertaken and in comparison with the aid offered to other transcontinental lines, and in strict accordance with the policy which has prevailed in recent years, and which is still necessary if we are to solve to the satisfaction of the people of Canada the transportation problems which confront us.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM: I have not a great deal of fault to find with my hon. friend's figures, except that they were very intricate, and probably that may have been necessary. It would be difficult for a member of parliament or for an elector to follow these various meanderings of the different companies, and the different guarantees, and the different subsidies, and the different names, and the different uses to which subsidies have been put. The question of transportation is a big one for Canada yet. I understood the argument of the Minister of Finance, outside of his statement, largely to be on behalf of doing something for the Canadian Northern enterprise. I want to say Tight here that I take no issue with him on that. The people of Canada did a great deal for the first transcontinental railway, and I am not going to enter into any comparisons now. My own opinion is that comparisons have Very little to do with the question before us, which is a concrete one and does not require to be discussed at length. As to whether or not we did a great deal for the Canadian Pacific railway, there is a difference of opinion. Looking at it from this distance and from the history of the country, I think, if it did require some sacrifice, it has been worth it to the country; and Canada is now the home of the greatest transportation system in the) Mr. WHITE ((Leeds).
known world. It is a well managed system. Conditions then were so altogether different from conditions now, that to attempt a comparison would not be of much value.
A great deal has been said about the Grand Trunk Pacific, and I will not stop to discuss it in detail. My hon. friend the hon. Minister of Finance answered himself in regard to guarantees and said, what is true, that Canada does not expect to be called upon to pay any money on these guarantees. Notwithstanding the figures placed before the House, this much must be borne in mind in reference to that enterprise, that when it is completed and all the cost is counted, be it greater or less than anticipated, Canada will own 1802 miles of the highest standard of railway on the continent of America. Although it is leased to a company, the title to 1802 miles rests in the name of the people of Canada and will be a big lever in time to come in governing what shall be done in regard to transportation in this country.
Let us come down to the present. The Canadian Northern railway interests are divided into so many different branches that I am not surprised that my hon. friend has found difficulty in chasing them all up. I am afraid he missed a few. Some came into my mind that he did not mention. In the first place, we have Mackenzie & Mann who are the foundation, the beginning and the end of all these enterprises. We have the Canadian Northern Alberta, the Canadian Northern Pacific, the Canadian Northern Ontario, the Canadian Northern Quebec; we have at least a dozen other lines under different names that have been acquired by these interests. It is such an intricate matter that to discuss it even before such a well informed body as Parliament, would-not be attempted by me for a moment. It is also a difficult matter if we deal with it as a matter of stocks, bonds and securities. I shall dismiss all that in a word. So far as I am concerned, and I believe all hon. members, we are prepared to do something for the Canadian Northern system at the present time. What is it to be; how are we to do it, and what are we to get for doing it?
My hon. friend mentioned a subsidy of $11,000 a mile to the Crowsnest Pass railway. It will be remembered by those who were in the House at that time that, when the Government did that, they secured from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company a most favourable concession as regards freight rates, and in other ways, such as coal areas. I am not saying what ought to be asked from the Canadian Northern Railway Company at the present moment. When any company comes asking favours, it is a good time to ask something in return for the benefit of the people of Canada. The Canadian Northern Ontario system

received from this Government a guarantee of $35,000 a mile from Montreal to Port Arthur. That approximated $35,000,000. Less than that was realized on the sale of the bonds. The Premier rather criticised me on that occasion for giving the cost of the road at the figure I mentioned. I attempted to justify the guarantee of $35,000 a mile by the statement that the road, if properly constructed, would cost in the vicinity of $50,000 a mile. I think equipment was included in that. These figures are justified to-day by the present Government. No road of modern construction in that territory can be built for a less sum of money. It was wise to place in that contract a clause outlining or defining, approximately at least, a standard to which the road should attain before they got this amount of money.
There are two ways of aiding roads. One is by .subsidies and the other by guarantees. The Canadian Northern usually asks a guarantee from the Dominion Government and a subsidy from the provincial .authorities. In many oases in the West they have got a guarantee from the provincial authorities and a subsidy from the Dominion Government. It is not often that a company asks for a subsidy and a guarantee from the same source. I am not going to quarrel with the request because I am not altogether acquainted with the reasons for it. The Minister of Railways has given us some particulars or rather comparisons with other roads. _ I do not think the comparison is a striking one and it does not enter into the calculation at all. Does the Canadian Northern require aid in order to complete its transcontinental line? If it does, we would have to consider very seriously before we would decline to give aid in some way under such conditions. Why? The Government of this country, whether it is this Government or the preceding one, has linked its name with this transcontinental line, and the credit of Canada as well is linked with this transcontinental line as it is linked with other transcontinental lines. In dealing with it from that point of view I think a certain amount of care is necessary, and the Dominion of Canada cannot afford to let the Canadian Northern enterprise collapse or do anything like collapsing. I am not saying that it is in such a condition at all. I do not wish to leave that inference. This is a great enterprise and no person can accuse me of having any antipathy against it, because during my term of office I took so much interest in it that some of the other roads thought I was going too far. I always claimed I was doing the best I could for the people of Canada, whether it was the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk Pacific, or the Canadian Northern.
I hold strong views .as to what governments ought to do, not for railway companies but for the people who use railways. It has been said-and it is a good demagogic argument-that we must not do anything for railways. I hold no brief for the companies; but we must bear in mind that every dollar that Canada has spent in aiding railway companies has been for the purpose of enabling the man who works on the farm or in the shop to get a bigger return for his daily labour, by carrying his products to and from market at a oheaper rate and with fair speed. That is the principle underlying aid to railways and other transportation organizations. We want to adhere to that .principal. That is the reason I do not object at alii to doing something for the Candian Northern railway. It may be a question of how we will do it, or what we will do. I go further perhaps than some other hon. gentlemen would go. Living in the old part of Canada, where we have railway facilities, where we can get on a train when we please, having a choice of trains every day to go where we like, we are apt to think it is time we should cease giving assistance to these transportation companies, forgetting that we have brought men to Canada, forgetting that we have brought women to Canada, wbo live in places ten, twenty, forty, fifty, a hundred miles from a railway. I say it is the duty of the people, of Canada, enjoying the privileges we do, to continue lending our assistance until all the places to which we bring people to help to build up Canada have railway facilities approximately as good as those we have in the older part of the country. That is the only way in which we can make the people of Canada contented, prosperous and happy.
Well what are we to do for the Canadian Northern railway? In the first place, now is the time when, if we have any little grievance which the Parliament of Canada should straighten out with either the Canadian Northern railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific, that grievance should be remedied. I have a grievance against the Canadian Northern Railway system-and against the Government, too, though I think perhaps the Government did not understand thoroughly what they were doing. Last year this Government by statute exempted five hundred miles of the Canadian Northern railway transcontinental line from the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada-not the Canadian Northern railway, but as stated in the statute, the Canadian Northern Pacific, from the Rocky mountains pass down to Vancouver. The Canadian Northern Pacific last year was given $12,000 a mile-about $6,000,000, as a subsidy. But the provision that is put in every other subsidy agreement that the rates of the railway sub-

sidized shall be under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners, was left out in this case. So we are in the position to-day of being asked for further aid to a line on which the Board of Railway Commissioners cannot control the rates.-and that, a transcontinental line from Montreal to Vancouver.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask a question? I am sure the hon. member would not willingly leave a false impression. The provincial Act incorporating this line contained express provision that it should not be subject to the Board of Railway Commissioners, but that the rates should be fixed by the Lieut-Governor in Council and this Parliament should have no power to take from the provincial Government, which had incorporated the company the power which that legislation had given. Is not that correct?


George Perry Graham: It may be. But then
this Government had not any right to give $6,000,000 to a road so restricted, The Canadian Northern railway built the road under a provincial charter in order to get rid of the Board of Railway Commissioners and for other reasons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They could not have built in any other way.


George Perry Graham: Yes, they could; they could have come here and got a Dominion charter. The question is simply whether this Government shall control a transcontinental line, or leave a part of that line under control of a provincial government. I have this grievance against the Canadian Northern railway and the Government, and that may crystallize in the form of a resolution before this is through. It is in abrogation of the principle we have adopted in relation to railway affairs. We have a Board of Railway Commissioners, part of whose duty is to control rates; and in every subsidy Act for many years has been inserted the clause under which a provincial road accepting a subsidy from this Parliament shall be subject to the Board of Railway Commissioners. But this road was excepted. If it had been only a provincial road, with provincial objects alone, there might have been a reason for this, or there might be excuse, at least. But this is part of a transcontinental line. To-day we are asked to give a subsidy to another link in that line; and I say that now is the time to say to the Canadian Northern railway: You must make arrangements, before we give you aid, by which this transcontinental line, every foot of it, shall come under the Railway Commissioners, so that the people may get the benefit of the rates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Their rates must be under the commission.
Mr. GRAHAM.


George Perry Graham: They are not, and they need not be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, must be.


George Perry Graham: As the Minister of Finance would say, I know what is in the hon. gentleman's mind. He would tell us that under the Act, when this becomes part of a transcontinental line, it comes under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners. That statement was made last year; but the Prime Minister will tell the hon. gentleman that it is not correct. I hate to put my law against that of a learned counsel, but if the hon. gentleman will look at the decision of the Privy Council-


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the Montreal Street railway case, I suppose.


George Perry Graham: -as to the jurisdiction of the Dominion Board of Railway Com-misioners to control rates, over a partly provincial and partly Dominion road, he will find that the Privv Council has settled it that the Board of Railway Commissioners has no right to control that part of the rate which is made up on the provincially chartered road, and as to the Dominion Railway Act regarding such matters, that Act is ultra vires. This is a provincial road, with a provincial charter. Last year, when this became part of a through line under our Act, some hon. gentlemen said that the rates could be controlled. Now it transpires, by judgment of the Privy Council, that these rates connot be controlled when a provincial road forms part of a through line. That is one of the things I ask the Canadian Northern railway to straighten out before they get this subsidy. For, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, this is not a provincial road, but is to carry a share of the immense traffic flowing between the East and the West. Every one of the provinces of the Dominion is interested in that section of five hundred miles so far as the traffic east and west is concerned; and. in the interest of all the provinces no part of that road should be exempted from the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think mv
hon. friend will at once see that the Board of Railway Commissioners would fix the rates of traffic from Montreal to Vancouver.


George Perry Graham: I do not think thev
could.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I submit that they must. The province of British Columbia, over whose Act in this matter we have no control, for some reason best known to itself, has said that the board shall not fix rates from Summit to the coast. But, notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the de-

cision which I have very carefully considered, the Board of Railway Commissioners would fix the rates from Ottawa to Vancouver. For fifteen hundred miles of that transit would be on roads subiect to the control of the board, and the narticular proportion of a through rate of any portion of the road they would not be able to determine. Do I make myself clear?


George Perry Graham: I am not auite sure that I catch the drift of that argument.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the question were at issue before the Board of Railway Commissioners as to a through rate from Ottawa to Vancouver over the Canadian Northern railway, that tribunal would have the jurisdiction. In any event, it is conceded that it has complete and supreme control up to Summit. From Summit to the coast the province of British Columbia has said that the Lieutenant Governor in Council will assert supreme control, but with regard to the fixing of the through rates from Ottawa to Vancouver, surely if the Board of Railway Commissioners exercises the control which is given to it over the 1,500 miles of transit, it will only be a matter of deciding what the 'through rate shall be.


George Perry Graham: That would be a question as between the railway companies, which the Board of Railway Commissioners would not have power to settle, because they cannot do anything with the provincial line. The company has said to the British Columbia Government that no appeal will 'be made to the Board of Railway Commissioners and should anybody have the temerity to make such an appeal, they are ready to fight it. So the Board of Railway Commissioners so far as a through rate is concerned are absolutely debarred. The British Columbia contracts so provides in order vto control traffic emanating in British Columbia and going outside, as well as traffic emanating outside of British Columbia and coming in, so it is a wider contract than one having application only to the province of British Columbia. In rendering aid to the Canadian Northern Railway Company one of the things that ought 'to be done is put the whole line under the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Notwithstanding the fact that the people of British Columbia say no.


George Perry Graham: We are legislating for
the Dominion of Canada. If the railway company has placed itself in a peculiar position, it is its business to get out of it. I believe that the proper way to have aided the Canadian Northern Railway Company at the present time would have been by way of loan. It will be in the minds of some persons that if a loan were secured, it would hamper the company in its further
financing if the Dominion of Canada held the securities of the enterprise. It would do this only if the amount were too small to complete the enterprise. I would be prepared if necessary to give twice the amount that is set out in these resolutions and make it a loan so that there would be a sufficient amount of money loaned to the company on a businesslike basis. As to the $7,000,000, I am not going to discuss that. It is possible that the stock may be very valuable, and it may not. I would not say for a moment that it is not of considerable value now, but it is problematical what the future value will be. Will the Government in 'becoming a large stockholder ask for representation on the board of the railway? The Government of Canada now has a representative on the Grand Trunk Pacific Board. I am not going to discuss the extent of his usefulness, but the Government of Canada at the present time is a bondholder of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and in the Canadian Northern it is going to become a stockholder, holding one-tenth of the entire capital stock of the enterprise. Under these circumstances it strikes me that the Government should ask for representation on the board. If it does, and I think it should, it will become a part owner of the Canadian Northern system, and, whatever its future condition may be, the Government will be bound to see it through. I am a friend of the enterprise; I believe Canada must see it through, but, as I say, I believe aid ought to be given by way of a loan, even if the amount be twice as large, and I think we should not give this money to the Canadian Northern until they place their entire line under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
At six o'oloclf House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 233, for the relief of Frank William Meek.- Mr. Pardee. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair).
Mr. STEELE:: I feel that I cannot allow this Bill to pass through the House without raising my voice in protest against it. I do not feel that it is necessary, even at this late time of the session when we are all anxious to hurry on the work, to apologize for delaying the business of the House for a few moments while I give expression to my views on this Bill. We are recognizing more and more in this country the

value of social questions. We recognize in this land, what is recognized in many other countries, the great evil following the granting of divorces too easily. Divorce is recognized as one of the evils which the great country to the south of us must deal with at no very distant date. We in this country have been very fortunate in the past in the matter of granting divorces, and it is only in the last year or two that applications have come to our Parliament in very great numbers. Now is the time, however, for this Parliament to exercise that care which will prevent the coming, in this land, of an epidemic, so to speak, of that evil which is so prevalent in the land to the south. Divorce is a social question, and it is one which involves the happiness and morality of society. If divorces are improperly granted, attacks are then made on that foundation on which the social structure of our land is reared. It becomes, therefore, most important that this Parliament, which is entrusted with the granting of divorces, should exercise the greatest care in dealing with every such application that comes before this House. I do not wish to take up the time of the House at the present moment to discuss the procedure that is followed in this country in the matter of granting divorce. I do wish, however, to say that while we may object to some of the Bills which have been put through by the Senate committee, we cannot do otherwise than testify to the great patience and care and thought and attention which is devoted to the applications by that committee and especially by its chairman. But even the Senate Committee on Divorce is not infallible. They make mistakes and, in my opinion, when this Bill which is now before us was passed by that committee, they [DOT]made an error. In my mind the decision they arrived at to grant a divorce to the petitioner in this case was not warranted by the evidence. I shall not enter into details of that evidence, but I shall very briefly make a statement of it. The petitioner and the respondent in this case lived together for eighteen years, and, on the testimonv of the petitioner, they had no trouble during all that time. At the end of eighteen years, the respondent decides to leave her husband, according to his story. She, after a few months separation from him, goes to live in another house, an eight-roomed house, in which the only occupants were she and a man. She does not do this secretly; she does not hesitate to let her husband know where she is; she changes the telephone from the house which she and her husband had occupied, to the house where she is now living. Letters of her husband which come to her, she readdresses in her own hand and forwards to him at his address. So that there is Mr. STEELE.
no effort on her part to hide or to_ live secretly. While she spends a year living in this house, a neighbour girl gives evidence that she visited the house almost every day during that time, and she saw nothing improper whatever in the relations between the respondent and the corespondent. Detectives are put on the track, and we all know that the evidence of these men is, perhaps, not the best; but the most that they can testify to in this case is that they saw shadows on the window blinds of the front room of the house, and one was under the impression that there were two people in the room, and that they were in the act of undressing. This is practically the evidence.


Mr. LANCASTER:: Who was the householder ?


Michael Steele: There is no evidence given as to who was the householder. The evidence is not very plain on several points which it seems to me it would be most important for this Parliament to have full information upon. Practically all that has been proven is that she left her husband and went and lived in a house, occupying that house with a man for the term of about a year. This may arouse our suspicions, and there may be certain other facts connected with the case which intensify those suspicions. But let me say that there are hundreds of women in this land who, on account of the conduct of their husbands, would feel a great relief in being enabled to leave them and go and earn their living at any occupation for wnich they were adapted. If a woman has no profession or trade, what can she earn that living at ? Nothing else than domestic service, or keeping house for a man. I think this Parliament should hesitate before establishing the precedent that a divorce will be granted to any man whose wife leaves him and goes and lives in a house with another man for a period of some months. I think we should hesitate before stamping any woman who does that as an immoral woman. I think there is a great principle at stake here-that we ought not to pass this Bill until we have further evidence to absolutely corroborate what has been given or to absolutely prove that this woman led a life of immorality after she parted from her husband. For the reasons I have given, I believe that the evidence in this case does not warrant divorce being granted, and does not warrant the House of Commons giving this Bill a third reading.


Mr. CROCKET:: I quite agree with my
hon. friend from Perth as to the necessity of great care being exercised by this Parliament in the granting of divorce. I confess that of the thirty odd divorce cases which have been considered by the Private

Bills Committee this session, with respect to at least three of them I entertained great doubt as to whether a divorce should be granted. However, with respect to the present case, the evidence which was given, and which was considered very carefully, I think, by the Private Bills Committee, convinced me absolutely that the respondent was guilty of the offence charged. The evidence shows that the respondent in this case had been absenting herself regularly from her home in the evenings, not returning until a very late hour, and that she informed her husband that she had grown tired of him, preferred some one else, and proposed, I think, to live with some one else. Immediately after that statement, she separated from her husband, and the evidence shows that for a period of a year she lived in a house, I think in Ossington avenue, in the city of Toronto, the only other occupant of which was a man by the name of Hillyard, whom she introduced to her neighbours as her brother, while the evidence shows that he was not, in fact, her brother. It seems to me that that is a combination of circumstances which raises only one inference, and, so far as I am concerned I have no hesitation in saying that of all the cases that have been considered by the Private Bills Committee this session, I entertain less doubt with respect to the petitioner's right to divorce in this case than in any other.
Preamble carried on division, and Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



LENORE POWER DIVORCE BILL.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 234, for the relief of Lenore Power.-Mr. MacNutt. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1:
William F. Carroll: This case was brought
to my attention by a number of gentlemen some days ago, and I took the trouble to read the evidence which had been submitted to the Senate Committee in connection with it. I must say that, in my humble judgment, there is absolutely no evidence in this case to justify the granting of divorce. I think that considerable care should be taken in passing these Bills. I consider that when there is no direct evidence of the one fact which is necessary to give this Parliament jurisdiction to grant divorce, there should be a superabundance of indirect evidence, on which we could come to a conclusion that the party was guilty of the offence. I am-not going into the evidence in this case. As a matter of fact, the person who is named as co-respondent came before the Senate Committee, and absolutely denied that anything had taken place between herself and Power which would justify the granting of divorce. She underwent a most severe cross-examin
a/tion, and her evidence was not weakened in the least. I do not see where there is anything on which we can ground the assumption or conclusion that the one vital fact, which is necessary in a case of this kind, has been proven, or even attempted to be proven. I do not think that the Parliament of Canada should undertake to deal lightly with matters of this kind, especially on very flimsy evidence. As a lawyer, I consider that tnere is absolutely no evidence to justify this Parliament in passing this Bill. For these reasons I am opposing the bul, and I would advise hon. gentlemen if they have not read the evidence, to read it before casting their votes on this Bill.


Mr. BOYS:: Having taken a considerable part in the discussion of this Bill in the Private Bills Committee, I feel impelled to say a few words in connection with it. At the outset, I wish to say that I entirely agree with what my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) has said. I do not think that the petitioner, either upon her own evidence or upon the whole evidence, is entitled to a divorce. I do not propose, for various reasons, among others, that the evidence is somewhat revolting, to go into detail; but perhaps I may be allowed to refer to what appeared to me to be two or three striking illustrations of the weakness of the case in the petitioner's story. Her only evidence is that a confession was made by her husband, apparently in a moment of sorrow or repentance.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: To herself?


William Alves Boys: To herself. She gave evidence to a confession made by her husband, and that is absolutely the only evidence adduced by her in support of her application. On page 11, she says:
He admitted that he had got too familiar with May.
In cross-examination on page 14, she puts it in this way:
He said: ' It was my fault, I tried to get too familiar with May.'
I cannot conceive it possible that any person believing that adultery had been committed would have made the statement which she made in cross-examination, that he had said he had tried to get too familiar, for I judge that in that case he had a little more than tried. When we look at other parts of the evidence, we find that, in answer to the Chairman, she said:
Q. You understood perfectly well from what he said that he had connection with her at that time?
Her answer was:
I certainly drew that inference.

Nowhere is there stronger evidence than that she drew an inference. As against that evidence you have the positive contradiction by the young woman herself. There is another most striking feature to be found in the evidence. The offence was committed, if committed at all, on the 13th of November, which was a Wednesday. She learned of it on the following Sunday. On the 25th of November, some days later, she gives this young girl, whom she blames, this certificate of character:
Miss Dyer has been with me for nearly three years as companion. I have found her industrious, capable and trustworthy, and will be glad to answer any inquiries. Address, Mrs. Power, Cobourg. Am parting with her because I cannot keep a companion any longer.
(Sgd.) Lenore Dennis Power.
I can only come to one conclusion that, when the petitioner gave that certificate of character, she could not have had divorce in her mind at all, and that divorce must have been an afterthought. I might have hesitated to take up the time of the House, were it not for the closeness of the vote in the committee. This case was discussed twice in the committee. It reached us in error before the Bill had been read a second time and referred, and the vote w-r-s seven to three against granting the divorce. It reached us again, having that very evening had its second reading. On that occasion the vote was 6 to 6 and a gentleman of the committee, who at first did not vote, in the epd decided to vote and gave the casting in favour of the Bill.
I regret the practice that prevails in Canada as to granting divorces; but, as long as these Bills must come before a Private Bills Committee, and as long as members of that committee have to take the responsibility of acting uphn the committee, it appears to me that we must try to do our duty. I do not think there is any evidence to warrant us in granting this Bill and I would think it is as easy to put a Bill through this Parliament as to get divorces in Reno, if this Bill goes through.


Oswald Smith Crocket: With great deference
to the views expressed by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Boys), I believe that the evidence adduced before the Senate Committee in this case and considered by the Private Bills Committee, proves that the respondent was guilty of the offence charged. Had I considered only the evidence which the petitioner gave in regard to the admission which her husband made to her of his conduct, I would not have been disposed to vote for the divorce; but the co-respondent was put upon the stand and was examined by counsel representing the respondent. The co-respondent corroborated every detail of ' Mr. BOYS.
the admission which the respondent made to the petitioner, except with regard to the actual fact of adultery. There is no doubt at all but that, if the admission which the respondent made to the petitioner is true, the offence was committed, and would be held to have been committed by any court of law in this country. I shall read just the material evidence on page 11, a3 follows:
He said: 'Well, last Wednesday evening I made a fool of myself. I was sitting downstairs, and May was sitting there, and I pulled her over on my lap-she did not seem to object very much; she sat there for some time; she did not seem to have very much on in the way of clothing, and I got very inquisitive and investigated.' He said, ' I put my hands up her clothes, and found that she had no draw ers on.' He said, ' she sat there for some time, and then she said she wanted to go to bed; so I carried her upstairs to her bedroom with my arms around her bare body.' I said, ' and you went to bed with her ? ' He said, ' No, not then, I didn't.' He said, ' I went downstairs and I drank some whisky, and when I went upstairs again I undressed and I went to her bed.'
If that evidence were given in any court of law, it certainly would be taken as-evidence of the commission of adultery. One can well understand that the young girl would perhaps not admit the commission of the actual fact, but that is the only difference between the statement of the co-respondent and of the petitioner in this case. It is for that reason that I voted for the granting of this divorce.


William F. Carroll: There is no evidence
here to be corroborated. The confession which this husband made to his wife is simply a confession of familiarity with a third party; this young girl admits all that familiarity, but swears most positively, even under an hour's cross-examination, that nothing outside of a little familiarity took place between them. I intend to call for a vote on this question before it passes this committee.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: It has
been said that in this case there is sufficient evidence to convince a court of justice. I disagree with that entirely. I have read over this case carefully, and have given it serious consideration. I am satisfied there is no evidence which would convince any judge that adultery was committed. There is no question whatever that there was an attempt, and the man would morally be just as blameworthy as if he had succeeded; but, if we have to decide here that there is actual adultery, there is no evidence whatever on that point. Our duty is to dispose of this Bill on such evidence as has been submitted, and in view of that I am prepared to vote against this divorce being granted. The man him-

self does not admit positively, and the petitioner merely says that from what he said she inferred that certain things had happened.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not a member of the Private Bills Committee, but I heard a good deal of the discussion and afterwards glanced over the evidence. In the first place, none of these gentlemen have referred to the fact that the man admitted, and it is not denied by the girl, that he was in a positive state of drunkenness at the time the alleged act occurred. The whole secret lies in this fact that, according to the evidence, this woman is simply tired of the man. She has an income of $1,400 a year; she is a prospective heiress to some $60,000. In my opinion, had the man not been worth a dollar, the girl would have been turned out of the house and the man turned to work, too. Suppose this man had been prosecuted, if it were a criminal offence, what is the evidence? The positive denial of the man that anything improper happened-by improper I mean adultery- and also the positive denial of the girl. If a divorce is granted, this girl is branded for all time to come. The couple are not very old. So far as I am concerned, I shall vote against granting a divorce, and probably in a year they will both come to their senses.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As I have been saying
in this Parliament for the last ten years all this goes to show that this is not the tribunal in which such a case should be tried. I have no fault to find with any hon. member who says that there is no case against the man, and I am just as honest in my view that there has been a strong case made out. I base my opinion on the evidence and the correspondence, and I base it more on what the petitioner did not swear to than what she did swear to.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The whole case illustrates the unfairness of this House of Commons sitting as a court of appeal on evidence they did not hear and without knowing how the witnesses deported themselves on the stand, which in most cases is a matter of the greatest importance. The Senate Committee gave this matter their earnest consideration, and they came to the conclusion that a divorce should be granted.


Mr. BEST:: Does the hon. gentleman
think that a jury should decide on the evidence that was not given rather than on the evidence that was given?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. member is not serious in asking such a question. My hon. friend from York, N.B. (Mr. Crocket), who is a good lawyer, one of the best lawyers in the House, and who is chairman of the committee, gave you his opinion as to the legal result of the evidence, and I entirelv concur with him. In my judgment, the woman co-respondent in the case simply perjured herself like a lady.


William F. Carroll: Was there a confession of adultery?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not intend in this public place to discuss the details of the case.	[DOT]
Mr, BENNETT (Calgary): The late Lord Hannen, who was chairman of the Divorce Court in England for many years, said that m such cases as this if on the evidence before the court the circumstances were equally compatible with innocence or guilt, the jury should find the accused innocent. On the evidence in this case, the facts are equally consistent with innocence or guilt, and I propose to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. The case against this man is that he himself first brought his wife's attention to a state of facts which he said constituted wrongdoing on his part. He telephoned her, and she came from Toronto, and he met her at the station, and she' says he there confessed to improper relations with 'this girl; but stated that the improper relations were only familiarity and were not criminal. You have the positive denial of the girl charged as co-respondent, and you have the evidence that the husband told the wife herself in the first instance that there was familiarity, but not crim-nality. These facts are as compatible with innocence as with guilt, and I would have to go further than any case I have read in the books were I to find the man guilty of the offence charged against him.
Section negatived: year, 47; nays, 22.
The committee rose.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 235, to incorporate the Board of Management of the Canadian District of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Ohio and other States.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on the proposed resolutions respecting the granting of the subsidies therein mentioned to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
George Perry Graham: When the committee
rose I had about concluded, but as an hon. member has asked me for an explanation of the clause placed in the various subsidy Acts, I think it is but fair I should make clear what I had in mind. The clause which, except in this case, has invariably

been placed in subsidy Acts, is in the present resolution and reads as follows:
That the granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the respective companies shall be subject to the condition that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at all times provide and secure to other companies such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights as will afford to all railways connecting with the railway and bridges so subsidized reasonable and proper facilities in exercising such running power, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with connecting companies, and equal mileage rates between all such connecting railways; and the said board shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to be levied and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways and bridges hereby subsidized:	Provided always
that any decision of the said board made under this section may be at any time varied, changed or rescinded by the Governor in Council, as he deems just and proper.
An amendment was moved by myself last year when the Canadian Northern Pacific railway subsidy was going through, that this clause be inserted in the Act. That was defeated in the House. What I propose to mQve at some stage of the present resolution or of the Bill to be based upon it is that this clause be added, except that the name of the Canadian Northern Pacific railway be inserted, making it apply to that particular part of this transcontinental line as it will apply to other parts. I know the Prime Minister will say that this is a different company and we are not now subsidizing that company. But I submit that it is the same system, owned by the same parties, and will form part of the transcontinental line. And this is probably the last opporunity we shall have of imposing on this transcontinental system an obligation that this, like other transcontinental systems, shall be under the Board of Railway Commissioners. I merely make this explanation so that the Prime Minister may know that I propose to move this amendment at some time in the proceedings.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is debating the same matter we had under consideration last year-the effect of the agreement of this company with the Government of British Columbia that it will not prosecute any appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners?


George Perry Graham: Yes, and that the rates shall" not be under the Board of Railway Commissioners as the British Columbia Government have provided some other tribunal to fix the rates on this road.


Robert Laird Borden: As I recollect the matter last year, the provisions of the Railway Act seemed to indicate that there would be Mr. GRAHAM.
jurisdiction in respect of through traffic. The answer made was that the company had agreed that it would not invoke that jurisdiction. That was the situation as I recollect it.


George Perry Graham: The company agreed that it would not invoke that jurisdiction, and my contention is that the decision of the Privy Council renders that part_ of the Railway Act ultra vires which is relied upon to give jurisdiction to the Railway Commissioners over rates on a line which is partly a provincial line.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as that is concerned, I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me that this system must be regarded as a whole, and that in the end it must be brought under the ownership and control of one company.


William Manley German: What about British
Columbia ?


Robert Laird Borden: I will come to that in a moment. If this road is to fulfil the purpose of a transcontinental railway, it is abundantly evident that the whole system must in the future, and the not distant future, be brought under the ownership and control of one company; and it must come to this Parliament for that purpose. When it does come to this Parliament for that purpose, Parliament will have ample jurisdiction to insist that the whole line, from the Pacific to Quebec, or wherever the eastern terminus may be, shall be under the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. I have no apprehension whatever as to what the practical result will be in that regard. Further, looking over the debate of last year, I find that I argued then -and I see no reason to depart from my conclusion now, unless there has been in the meantime some decision such as that on which my hon. friend relies-that under the provisions of the Railway Act, the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada has jurisdiction over through traffic on this line. I admit what my hon. friend contends for, that it is desirable that the whole of this line, not only with respect to through traffic, but with respect to all traffic, should be under the jurisdiction of one tribunal. But the circumstances attending the granting of aid by the province of British Columbia were inconsistent with that result, so far as this line was within the limits of the province of British Columbia and was aided by the province; and we did not attempt to over-ride or interfere with that last year, for the reason that, so far as through traffice was concerned, we thought there was perfect jurisdiction and control in the Board of Railway Commissioners. But, whether that be the case or not. the road must eventually come under the ownership and control, and

under the operation, of one company, if it is to be a real transcontinental line.
My hon. friend has agreed in our appreciation of the status of this road. As far back as 1903, when we were discussing the proposal of the late Administration to build a new transcontinental railway, I said from my place in this House, that the Canadian Northern railway system had, even at that time, attained the status of a transcontinental mad. Having regard to its subsequent development and progress, there is no doubt that the Canadian Northern railway must be regarded as one of the three great transcontinental railways of Canada.
I concur entirely in the appreciation of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) of the importance of the transportation system of this country to the development and progress of Canada. It is of course quite apparent that the development and progress of this country in recent years have been due to a number of great causes, one of which has been the abundance and variety of our natural resources and the capacity and energy of our people in developing them. But there are two other great causes which must not be lost sight of, and without which the progress of Canada during the past fifteen or twenty years would have been much less than it has been. These two causes are the development of transportation-the enormous pace at which railway construction has proceeded in this country-and the very great volume of our immigration. Railway construction and immigration have had a great deal to do, as every hon. gentleman in this House knows, with the progress and development of this country during many years in the past. I concur'with what my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew said as to the strenuous efforts the Can-ad ian people have made, and the tremendous sacrifices they have been willing to undergo for the purpose of extending and developing the transportation systems of this country. Economical and rapid transportation facilities are more necessary to Canada than perhaps to any other country in the world. We have all of these vast natural resources scattered over a country as large as Europe; we have a sparse population, divided to a certain extent into isolated communities, and scattered over the face of our great country. The problem of transportation begins at the farm, the factory, or any other centre of production, and does not cease until it reaches the market, whether it be in this or in some other country.
Another thing we ought to recognize is that the difficulties incurred in creating in this country a transportation system are much greater than they are in the
country to the south of us. We have some 800 miles of territory north of Lake Superior; territory upon and around which there is no local traffic, and which wild probably not contain any very great population for many years to come. Therefore, in considering the project of building a transcontinental railway in Canada, you have to take into account 800 or 900 miles of road that must be built and operated, but which, so far as local traffic is concerned, can afford to the company no remuneration whatever, and which is to a certain extent a handicap upon the operating facilities of the road. Under all these circumstances, it seems to me that the progress and development of this country in transportar tion has been much greater than any of us could reasonably have anticipated twenty-five or thfrty years ago. It is a wonderful thing that the Canadian people have been able to accomplish all that has been accomplished. I know that in many parts of the country, particularly in western Canada, there has been a great deal of complaint as to the operation of some of our railways, but that has been largely due to the fact that an enormous crop has to be carried in a very few weeks. The problem before the railway companies of Canada is very much like the problem placed before a tram line company in a large city, where 10,000 people within a very small area wish to get on the ears within a very short space of time.
There is one other thing that ought to be taken into account in considering the proposals of the Government now submitted to Parliament, and that is, not only that the cost of labour and material has greatly increased within the past eight or ten years, but that unexpected difficulties in respect of railway construction and operation have arisen. The construction of this road through the Rocky mountains and along the northern shore of -lake Superior has proved unexpectedly difficult and expensive, and in addition to that we have had during the past twelve or eighteen months a condition of financial stringency which I believe has not been equalled and certainly has not been exceeded during the past twenty years. It is a stringency which is not confined to this country, but is world-wide, and therefore affects the very source from which Canada has drawn capital for her railway development during many years in the past.
I have spoken of these difficulties, but they are not sufficient to stay, and must not be permitted to stay, our progress in railway development in this country. There is a very large immigration flowing into Canada; I believe it ran to about 400,000 people last year. We have enormous areas in all parts of the country, particularly in the West, which have not yet been

brought under cultivation. I am speaking only from recollection, but I think with some accuracy, when I say that out of about 500,000,000 acres of land in the prairie provinces of Canada it is estimated that some 250,000,000 are arable, and of the 250,000,000 which are arable I believe that not more than fifteen or twenty millions have up to the present time been brought under the plough. Therefore we have this enormous extent of arable land capable of producing sufficient grain not only for this country, but almost for the world, and that land awaits the coming of the husbandman. Persons from a great many different parts of the world, particularly from Great Britain and the United States, are going into that country for the purpose of undertakig the labours that are necessary in order that this land may be made productive. Under these circumstances I entirely concur with what my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew said so well, that under no circumstances should the Parliament of Canada, as representing the people of this country, permit this great railway enterprise to collapse or even to have its progress unduly checked or stayed. It was with that consideration that these proposals have been submitted to Parliament.	.
I think the hon. Minister of Finance was perhaps slightly misunderstood when he directed the -attention of the committee to certain statistics as to the provision of the necessary capital for the construction of the Canadian Northern railway. I must at once admit that when the statistics which have been laid before this committee by the Minister of Finance were brought to my attention, I was very much surprised. It has been popularly supposed, and I myself was under the impression, that very much the largest proportion of all the money that had been raised for the purpose of constructing the Canadian Northern railway system hM been raised by means of bonds and securities guaranteed by the Government'of Canada or by the governments of several of the provinces. But when the actual facts were laid before me I found that these securities-and I am not speaking for the moment of the subsidies-amounted altogether to no less than $265,000,000, and I found that of that amount $145,000,000 had not been guaranteed either by the Government of Canada or by the Government of any province, and the balance, $120,000,000, had been guaranteed either by the Government of Canada or by the Government of some province. Of the $120,000,000 of securities which had been guaranteed by one Government or the other, only $58,000,000 had been guaranteed by the Government of Canada. The only result of that, therefore, was that out of $265,000,000 of securities which had been Mr. BORDEN.
issued for the purpose of constructing this great transcontinental system, no more than $58,000,000, or a little more than one-fifth, had been guaranteed by the people of Canada as a whole. I want that particular circumstance to be understood by the committee because, so far as I am concerned, it reveals to me a condition which I did not anticipate, and of which I was ignorant up to that time. I had supposed that a very much -larger proportion had been guaranteed either by one Government or the other.
As the Minister of Railways and Canals has observed, we have had a great many subsidy Bills before parliament within the last fifteen or twenty years, and whichever Government was in power, a certain policy has been followed of giving subsidies up to the amount of $6,400 a mile, assuming the construction of the road to have cost a certain amount.	That has been given
almost as a matter of course, provided the road supposed to be constructed appealed to the Government as one which would serve the public necessity in any reasonable way. I have here a list of roads to which such subsidies have been granted during the last eight or ten years. The list is very long, and the roads are of a varied character indeed, running from little branches of three, four or half a dozen miles, to lines of 500 or 1,000 miles forming important parts of our great transportation systems. There has not, so far as I am aware, been any unwillingness on the part of any Government or of any parliament to give aid up to that amount to any road which seemed reasonably calculated to serve the public interest in the way of transportation. That I venture to assert, without fear of contradiction, fairly indicates the policy which has been carried out by the Government of the right hon. gentleman opposite as well as by the Conservative Government which preceded him before 1896. Then, coming to the particular proposals now submitted for the consideration of the committee, we have not in this instance a road of the unimportant-character of many of those that have been subsidized during the past quarter of a century; we have a road which constitutes the main line of a great transcontinental railway system the completion of which, as the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has said, and said truly, has become of vital importance to the country and to the completion of which we are committed, provided that the demands upon us are not of an unreasonable nature. One would think that under these circumstances the granting of a subsidy of $6,400 per mile, such as has been allowed to any one of the varied

roads that have been subsidized by Parliament during the past twenty-five or thirty years, would not be objected to under the conditions and in view o! the circumstances to which I have alluded. It is certainly a fact that the portion of the road, for which the subsidy is now asked, is of an exceptionally expensive character, perhaps not so expensive as the road to which Parliament granted a subsidy of $12,000 only last session but still twice or even three times as expensive as some of the roads to which subsidies have been granted during the period I have mentioned. The amount of $6,400 per mile has been granted to many of these roads, the cost of which has not exceeded $20,000 or $25,000 per mile.
Surely, so far as the subsidy to this road is concerned, in view of the greatly increased cost of its construction, no hon. gentleman in this House would say that Parliament, in view of the importance of the road and in view of the conditions to which I have alluded, ought to refuse this reasonable measure of aid. The aid which we propose does not stop there, because we have asked Parliament to assent, not only to the ordinary subsidy of $6,400 per mile but to an additional amount of $5,600 per mile, making $12,000 per mile in all. If we base our proposals simply upon the importance of the road as contrasted with many roads to which $6,400 per mile has been granted and upon the consideration that this aid is in respect of its main line and not in respect of branch lines which form its feeders, our proposals would be justified. But we bring also to the attention of Parliament, not only the greatly increased cost of railway construction during these later years, but also the condition of financial stringency which has made it almost impossible for those interested in railway construction in this country to provide the means for continuing their work. Stoppage of construction would entail exceed-irghT unfortunate results not only to the company-because its interests are not to be considered except so far as'the public interest is involved in them-but to the whole country. We propose, as we did last year in respect of another portion of the same line, that a subsidy, not of $6,400 per mile but of $12,000 per mile, should bp granted to this railway system and we believe that this aid is necessary to secure the completion of this road. Parliament must take account of the situation which confronts the country and confronts the railway company under present conditions. I have made pretty careful investigation as to the efforts of this company and of she Grand Trunk Pacific Company to accomplish the financing necessary to enable them to keep on with their work in the future as thev have been carrying it on in the past.
I need not enter into detail, as regards the efforts which have been made to provide the capital necessary for the completion of these two roads. I think that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will appreciate the undesirability of going too much into details of that ch&raoter. It is enough to say that with respect not only to railway enterprises, but to enterprises which, under ordinary conditions, would be regarded as absolutely first-class securities in the money markets of the world, it has been almost absolutely impossible to raise money.
But we did not stop there, so far as this railway is concerned, although the considerations which I have brought to	the attention of the committee
would seem to me suflicient to appeal to the judgment of any man who did not desire that the progress and development of this country, especially in railway construction, should be brought to any sudden or undesirable check at this moment. The sum of $5,600 per mile, being the difference between the ordinary subsidy of $6,400 per mile and the subsidy now asked for, $12,000 per mile, is more than covered by the sum of $7,000,000 of capital stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, which is to be transferred to the Minister of Finance as fully paid-up stock, and which is to give this country a certain interest at least in the future prosperity of that road, if its future should be crowned with success. If this country continues to develop in the future as it has done in the past-and I think none of us have reason to doubt that

it seems to me exceedingly probable that that asset will be of great value to this country. We did not accept stock in any of those minor companies, the value of which, even in the future, might be more or less uncertain. We asked for $7,000,000 of the capital stock of the parent company itself, the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and whether or not that has anything more than an indeterminate value at the present time, I do think that there is not only the possibility, but the probability, that at some time in the future, and perhaps in the not distant future, it may be of very real and tangible value.
My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) made some inquiry as to whether or not the Government of this country is to be represented on the Board of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. I have no doubt whatever that that result would be brought about without any difficulty, if it were worth while. During the period that we have been in office, and for some time before, the Government of Canada has been represented on the Board of the



Grand Trunk Pacific by one gentleman at least; I am not sure whether by more than one.


Wilfrid Laurier: By one.


Robert Laird Borden: I am bound to say that up to the present time I have not seen any marked or material advantage resulting to this country from the presence on that board of the gentleman, whoever he may be. He is there, and he represents the country; but I do not know that there is any very distinct or peculiar advantage arising from his presence.
The question has been fairly put by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House: Why did you not do this by means of a loan, as in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and why do you propose to give this large subsidy to this company, whereas, in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific, you are merely proposing a loan ? Well, my hon. friend the Minister Minister of Finance went pretty fully into that,	and	I do not desire
to repeat at any length what he said. But perhaps there are one or two things which he did not emphasize in the way I would like to emphasize them. In the first instance, there is something to be said for the position that as those roads are to be competitive roads in the West, some reasonable basis of equality of treatment should be accorded to them, if you recognize them as transcontinental railways to the completion of which the interests of this country are in some measure committed. There is something perhaps to be said for that position, although I do not urge it as the main position. Whatever that argument may be worth, and no small weight is to be attached to it, it must be apparent to every hon. gentleman who has heard this discussion that in respect of the line from Montreal to the Pacific coast, this system, for which these subsidies are proposed to be granted, will have received a great deal less direct financial aid in the way of cash subsidies than the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company received in respect of the line from Winnipeg to the coast. The figures which have been given make that abundantly apparent, so far as the main line is concerned. [DOT]
I know my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) did bring into consideration certain lands which had been bought by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, or by one-of its subsidiary companies, for the roads which had been chartered in the West, and which had received those land grants. These were not direct grants to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, or to any of its subsidiary companies. It was open to any man in this House, or to any railway company in Canada, to purchase those enterprises and Mr. BORDEN.
I .	

to acquire those land grants in the same way that the Canadian Northern Railway Company acquired them. So far as I understand, and so far as my information goes, they were bought in the open market, so to speak. Those enterprises could be purchased and one of these companies did purchase them, and it has acquired whatever advantage was to be derived from them. But they were not direct grants to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, or to any of its subsidiary companies, in the first instance.
Then, you have the consideration to which I have alluded, that even if you grant this subsidy, this road will not be in as good a position, so far as direct financial aid is concerned, as the road which has been subsidized and assisted from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. There is another consideration in connection with that, which perhaps the Minister of Finance did not emphasize. The aid was granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company under such conditions that not one dollar can be deducted from the amount payable by Canada to that company for the carriage of mails; but so far as the Canadian Northern Railway Company is concerned, every dollar of the subsidy is subject to that condition. That is another very distinct position of advantage which is held not only by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company but by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as well, in contradistinction to the condition which has been imposed on the Canadian Northern Railway Company; and the payment of three per cent upon the amount of those subsidies comes to no inconsiderable sum, even upon the standard of $6,400 per mile.
The Minister of Finance has shown-and I have the figures under my hand to establish the same point if it were necessary
that, so far as assistance by guarantees of securities is concerned, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company from Winnipeg to the coast has received from this Dominion more assistance than the Canadian Northern system from Montreal to the coast._ Having regard to these considerations, it does not seem to me that the present proposal is unreasonable.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say: why do you not accomplish this result by way of loan rather than by subsidy? The answer I have given to that seems to be sufficient; but, apart from that, the question of making a loan to the Canadian Northern railway system must take account of all the necessities of that road in respect to provision for its future expenditure. The Canadian Northern will have to expend, as I am informed on the best authority, about $40,000,000 in providing for its terminals ; and hon. gentlemen opposite must bear in mind that, with the growth

and development of our cities and the exceeding great advance in the cost of land in these cities, the cost of terminals whether in eastern or in western Canada, has advanced enormously during recent years. If we were toi say to the Canadian Northern Railway Company:	The aid we
give you must be by way of loan and we cannot place you on an equality, so far as direct cash aid is concerned, with even the Grand Trunk Pacific, although your line to Montreal is about 1,000 miles longer than the Grand Trunk Pacific line from Winnipeg to the coast; if we were to take that position, we would have to assume a certain responsibility for all the future financing of that company. If we were to make a loan to that company and to take securities which would be worthy of the name, we would so involve the question of the future financing of that company that the country must in the end assume responsibility for the raising of the money necessary to complete its line. When you take the one alternative and the other particularly as the Canadian Northern Railway Company professes itself able, under ordinary conditions, to raise all the money that may be necessary for the completion of its line, and when you take into consideration the fact that the aid we are now giving to that road is less, so far as direct financial assistance is concerned, than that which has been given to a competitive road with 1,000 miles less of line, it would have been unreasonable and unwise for us to say that we would not grant the aid to the Canadian Northern railway up to the standard of assistance which has been accorded to another transcontinental railway, and that we would insist upon asking this Parliament to undertake a responsibility which would involve our taking care of all of the future finances of the Canadian Northern Railway Company.
I for one was reluctant to ask Parliament to assume that responsibility. I thought it would be a more reasonable course to say to Parliament: This is a competing line with the Grand Trunk Pacific and in respect to its main line, 1,000 miles longer than that of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to the coast, we are proposing to Parliament that Canada shall assist this system to the same extent as it has already assisted the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to the coast. I venture to think that that view ought to commend itself to hon. gentlemen opposite. However that may be it was a question of alternatives, and I can assure hon. gentlemen on both sides that we made a very careful study of the whole situation before we decided upon giving the aid contained in these proposals; and we came to the conclusion after the most careful study and investigation we could give to what undoubtedly was a question of some complexity, that, in view of all the conditions, the aid for which
371 i
Parliament should be asked at the present juncture should be by way of equalizing the direct financial assistance, and not by way of undertaking a responsibility which would make it incumbent upon us to look after the finances of the Canadian Northern in the future Had we adopted the latter course we would have tied up their whole system with a security such as Parliament might reasonably require for a large loan and the result would have been that which I have indicated. We have not been asked to assume that responsibility; we have been asked to give the measure of aid which is proposed now, and I venture once more to say that in view of all the information laid before Parliament, the aid we are proposing


William Manley German: If ever a proposition has been damned with faint praise, the proposition of the Government which is now before this committee has been damned by the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister; because, a speech more inconsistent with the proposition before Parliament, I never heard delivered by a Prime Minister of Canada. I am very much inclined to think that the right hon. gentleman is in accord with many of his followers-if rumour in the corridors is correct, really a majority-who are opposed to this scheme entirely.


Mr. HENDERSON:: Speak for yourself.


William Manley German: Speaking for myself, I
am opposed to it; and, speaking for hon. gentlemen opposite, I am very much inclined to think, having listened to the speech of their leader, that there is at least no enthusiasm in favor of it on the other side. It was left to the Minister of Finance to make an enthusiastic speech in favour of this proposition, and I am not very much surprised that he did so in view of the circumstances surrounding his appointment as Minister of Finance, because we all know in the province of Ontario how that happened.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell us.


William Manley German: The Canadian Northern
Railway Company is supposed to be controlled by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, knights of the realm.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who made
them knights?


William Manley German: The gentleman who controls the Canadian Northern Railway Company is like Sir Joseph Porter, First Lord of the Admiralty in the comic opera ' Pinafore ': he sits at his desk and never goes to sea. Mr. Zebulon A. Lash is the gentleman who controls the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and he is the gentleman who got up the round robin and in-

duced Mr. White to sign it, with Sir Byron Walker and the other noble eighteen Liberals in the province of Ontario, against the reciprocity resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Where were you?


William Manley German: I was against the reciprocity proposition, but I was not going around with brass bands. I did what I thought was right in the interests of the country, and I have never had occasion to regret it. Mr. Zebulon A. Lash was the gentleman who got up the round robin, and who got the Minister of Finance to sign it. He was the man who made him Minister of Finance. Now he is coming for his reward. He is the gentleman who controls the Canadian Northern Railway Company, if that is any information to hon. gentlemen opposite.
Many years ago in the province of Ontario, before the Judicature Act was enforced, we had a system of pleading which was called special pleading. I had occasion to be a law student in the office of Hon. Lewis Wallbridge, who was one of the most expert pleaders we had in the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have
been an apt pupil.


William Manley German: It was very technical
and very interesting; but I think I could give my hon. friend the Minister of Finance a fairly good record as being a special pleader, because as a special pleader he excelled himself this afternoon in the way in which he manipulated the figures in connection with this whole transaction, in the first place he endeavoured to show that the-late Government had granted great concessions to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company by guaranteeing their bonds, and he wound up by saying that a guarantee of bonds was no responsibility whatever to the country. I do not think we need bother about that any further. Let us come down to what is the crux of the situation. After many questions, after many interrogatories, after many interruptions, we succeeded in forcing the hon. Minister of Finance to tell us the amount of the subsidies which the Canadian Northern Railway Company got. Finally we succeeded in compelling him to state what had become of the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. What has become of it? He says $25,000,000 is held by the company in trust, until 1916 if I understand him correctly.


Francis Cochrane: I think that is the
statement he made.


William Manley German: Then until 1916 the
holders of the debenture stock can exchange it if they like for the common stock of the company. Is there a man living who Mr. GERMAN.
would imagine that any person, holding debenture stock which is secured by mortgage on the whole assets of the company, will change that stock between now and 1916 for the common stock of the company? The result will be that in 1916 that $25,000,000 of stock will be released and will belong - to Mackenzie & Mann, just as the $45,000,000 belongs at this moment to these gentlemen. The hon. Minister of Finance made the statement this afternoon that $45,000,000 of that stock-I am under that impression, but I am in the judgment of what ' Hansard ' says to-morrow- has been handed out to Mackenzie & Mann as the construction company of the Canadian Northern Railway Company.


Francis Cochrane: He did not say that.


William Manley German: I am in the judgment of what ' Hansard ' says to-morrow; but, whether he said it or not, that is exactly what has been done. They have got $45,000,000 of the stock, and besides that they have made in the construction of that railroad at least $10,000,000. They have been the contractors, the construction company; they have built the whole road from one end to the other at their own prices without any competition; subletting the contracts to whomsoever they saw fit. In addition to that they will control the other $25,000,000, when it is released from trust at the end of 1916. Then this company, controlled by these gentlemen, comes to this Parliament and says: We want you to give us $15,000,000 more. I have no quarrel with the Canadian Northern Railway Company or any other railway company. I am willing to do everything I can to aid this company and every other company to carry on their transactions profitably, in order to build up this country; but I protest against two men in this country simply exploiting a railway proposition as these two men have exploited the Canadian Northern railway. I say that advisedly, because I know what I am talking about. They own the company; they have made many millions of dollars in the construction of the road, and the public is paying the price. I do not think we should go any further in regard to the matter.
The Canadian Pacific railway has been discussed. What happened in regard to it? Donald Smith, George Stephen, R. B. Angus and Duncan McIntyre were the promoters. They were wealthy men. When they came to the Parliament of Canada to borrow $25,000,000 they had put every dollar they possessed in that road. If it had been a failure, they would have been bankrupt. They did not come to the people of Canada and say: Build a road for us. They had the faith of their convictions. Why do
11/1)1

these gentlemen not do the same? If they want money from the people of Canada to build this railroad, let them put their own money in it for a while. Do they expect the people of Canada to build a transcontinental railway for them, and to give it to them after it is built? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance said this afternoon that we were giving great subventions to the Grand Trunk Pacific. As the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) said: ' When that road is built we shall own a large part of it.' We are putting our money in a transaction which the people of Canada will own. What do we own in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway Company? It is said, we shall have $7,000,000 of their stock. For my part, I do not believe that .the Government of Canada should take stock in any railway company. The Government might as well take stock in a manufacturing company. If this company wants money from the people of Canada, I believe they can get it if they offer what they would give to any person else. If they come here with such a proposition, I certainly shall be willing to help them in any way I can. I do not however, believe,. as a matter of fact, that $15,000,000 is worth a sheet of paper to them now. I think that $30,000,000 or $35,000,000 might be of some advantage to them, and if they come and ask $35,000,000 of the people of Canada and give security, I believe that the people would be willing to let them have it for the purpose of maintaining a great transcontinental road such as this. But I for one will not be a party to handing over to this company $15,000,000 under the present circumstances. The stock of this company is controlled by two or three men who have madie millions out of the construction.
But I desire to come to another question, which, I think, is of equal if not of greater importance than even this question of the subsidy to this transcontinental line. This company is building, and has nearly completed, a line of railway between the city of Toronto and the city of Ottawa, and this Parliament is asked to give a subsidy of $6,400 a mile towards that road. On what grounds such a proposition is made, I really cannot understand. There is no use in hon. members sayiaig tha/t we have subsidized other roads. The line of the Canadian Pacific railway between here and Toronto was the original line. I believe it was at one time called the Ontario and Quebec, and was built under subsidy. Why was the subsidy given? Because the road Tan through what was then a wilderness, a new country. The Canadian Pacific railway _ eventually took over the road and took it over with the advantage of the subsidy. The principle upon which subsidies have always been granted is to afford aid to a railway company for the construction of a railway opening a new part of the country. We want these unopened parts of the country served with railways in order that settlers ni/ay go in and develop the resources of those sections. Men _ will not invest their money in building a railway into an unopened and unsettled country without aid1, and consequently the Dominion and provincial governments give aid to these, people. But why a subsidy should be granted to a railway company for constructing a line through the heart of the province of Ontario, reaching every town and city in the eastern part of the province which is prosperous and growing, I do not understand. That road will pay from1, the minute it is opened. From the time the first train runs on the Canadian Northern Ontario railway between Ottawa and Toronto, that road will be a paying proposition and will help to pay off the liabilities of the parent company. Then, why in the name of all that is sensible should this Government be asked to give them a subsidy? Suppose that before beginning to build a road they had come and asked a subsidy to build such a road, would any man in this House have supported the proposition? They would have said:	Go
ahead and build your road; there is plenty of scope and your enterprise will pay from the beginning. At one end of the road is the city of Toronto with a population of between 500,000 and 600,000 and at the other is the city of Ottawa with a population of 100,000. The line goes through Cobourg, Port Hope, Belleville and Kingston, all the largest places in this part of the province of Ontario. And it will go through the wealthy country of the province. To subsidize such a railway, I submit, is too absurd for consideration. I, for one, will not agree to it. The Minister of Railways agreed with me this afternoon that if the London and Tillsonburg Railway Company did not earn their subsidy before the time came for renewal, the subsidy should he refused them. Why? Because they are building through a well-settled country.


Francis Cochrane: No, because I do not believe in voting subsidies and letting them stay on the paper unearned. I believe in building.


William Manley German: If a road is entitled to a subsidy for building, it is entitled to that subsidy whenever it builds, and so I cannot quite see the distinction the hon. gentleman makes. But .the point I contend for is that the line of railway designated in this resolution offers no justification for the subsidy. And, so strongly do I feel on this subject, that I move that clause 1 of this resolution be struck out.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am sure the members of the committee must have been struck with the rather modest way in which this matter has been dealt with by hon. gentlemen composing the Government. One could not help being impressed with the changed conditions that are so apparent in these hon. gentlemen when they approach the consideration of this matter, in comparison with their attitude with_ the position they took ten years .ago in this House and in this country when the project of building a second transcontinental railway m Canada was first placed before the Canadian people. We did not have then the delightful platitudes which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and the right hon. Prime Minister gave us this afternoon about this great and glorious country and the desirability of transportation facilities being provided at the earliest possible date. I acquit the Minister of Finance of having entertained any peculiar theories ten years ago; he was walking in a different path then, and thinking on different lines, and per-hajps we may say he was a believer in some of the theories which he reiterated to-day. But the right hon. gentleman who now leads the House, kept the House sitting in the longest session since Confederation, previous to this one, in asserting the view that if Canada was to spend any money for the purpose of aiding the construction of a transcontinental railway, Canada should own the line, and he argued in 'favour of government ownership and operation. His press throughout the country declared in 1904, when my right hon. friend 'the leader of the Opposition came before the people of Canada upon this question, that the construction of a transcontinental railway was entirely unnecessary; that it would be a mortgage of the future of the Canadian people, and an expenditure wholly unjustifiable. That was the attitude of my right hon. friend ten years ago in regard to transcontinental lines.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that my (position was as stated by my hon. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps my right
hon. friend will tell us the position he did take.


Robert Laird Borden: I took the position, on
the second reading of the Bill, I think it was, that inasmuch as the country undertook to make financial provision for the greater part of the line, it would have been more in the interests of the people to make the entire financial provision and to own the road from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is simply a restatement of what I said a moment ago, and a reiteration of the position my hon. friend took at that time.
Mr. GERMAIN.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend said that I opposed the construction of a .second transcontinental railroad.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my right hon.
friend did not declare that a second transcontinental railway should not be built in 1904, I do not know what the gentlemen who went about the country looking for support as his -followers were saying to the people if they did not say that. In the province from which I come, the gentleman who contested my constituency with me, one of the prominent leaders of the Conservative party in the province of Nova Scotia, said that this tremendous burden that was to be placed on the Canadian people was wholly unnecessary and unjustifiable. So it was urged all over Canada, and in this House. If hon. gentlemen refer to 'Hansard' of 1903, they will find assertions made time after time by hon. gentlemen who calculated the amount of the mortgages that were to be placed upon the different constituencies in the Province of Ontario in securing the construction of a railway which was wholly unnecessary. I merely mention this fact for the purpose of showing more particularly that the tone of my right hon. friend has changed somewhat in the intervening years. We are delighted to know that to-day he and his party recognize the wisdom of the Liberal party and its leader in 1903, and that they believe that at that time Canada needed a second transcontinental railway, and could not have it too soon. But my right hon. friend, while urging at that time that there should be public ownership, urged a great many other things which he has not urged today in coming before the House with this proposition. What about conditions being placed in contracts providing that all freight should be carried through Canadian ports? I recall the discussion that took place in parliament at that time, during the course of which it was urged that if the Canadian people were subsidizing by subventions of various kinds the construction of a second transcontinental railway, one of the great desiderata in connection with that should be that the freight which was to go out, more particularly over these transcontinental lines, should he routed through Canadian ports. If hon. gentlemen refer to the transcontinental contracts, they will find a provision to this effect, placed there as a result of the discussion which took place in the House at that time. What about the conditions to be placed in contracts that the company which was receiving the aid should be bound to purchase in Canada the materials necessary for the construction and operation of the road? At that time this was regarded as most essential, and those hon. gentlemen who refer to ' Hansard ' of 1903 will observe the

exhaustive energy with which my right hon. friend at that time sought to devise restrictions and impose various limitations upon the company of that day, which restrictions and limitations he declared to be absolutely necessary and in the interests of the Canadian people. To-day we are asked to vote $15,000,000 without any restrictions whatever. We are asked to buy 7,000 shares of Canadian Northern stock, paying 228 for it, and to be very much pleased that we have the opportunity of doing so. That is the proposal which my right hon. friend has brought before the House, and I am bound to say that he has done so with becoming modesty. Let us see where we are in regard to this matter. The argument that we are assisting a great national enterprise is a sound argument in the abstract. I notice that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is very apt in dealing with abstract propositions. To say that the Canadian people should to-day and at all times stand for principles of transportation improvement or anything which makes for the development and certain attainment of our future needs by these national enterprises is a proposal to which no gentleman in this House will take exception. But that does not prove my hon. friend's case. If there is any one member of this Government or of this House who should not deal with these abstract theories, and who should look after the dollars and cents and the business end of the matter, it is my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. It is open to other hon. gentlemen of the Ministry sitting around him to descant upon these glories, but I want to submit to him that he is the keeper of the keys; he is the man who is supposed to sit upon the treasury box of this Dominion, and if he does not look after the business end of this matter, who in this Government or in this House is going to do so? Theoretically, this is a national enterprise; substantially it is not a national enterprise, and for this reason.	There is a grave and
very decided line which marks off one end 'of this railway from the rest of it. The Government of the province of British Columbia has declared that the Government of the Dominion shall have nothing to do with that portion of the line which runs through British Columbia. They say: We are going to control the rates; we are going to have absolute control over everything; and the Dominion Government cannot touch this road through its Railway Commission or in any other way.
The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) pointed out very aptly and with great force, with a force that I am sure has not been met by the Prime Minister in dealing with this question, that there is a
very grave gap in connection with this proposition, great as it is, laudable as it may be, and that this Government has never attempted to deal with it at all in making this proposition and submitting it to the House. It is therefore, as a matter of fact, in a business sense, not a national proposition in any way, it is a provincial proposition in one of the greatest provinces of this Dominion. That province with its peculiar local interests and the views and judgments of its Government in respect to particular parts of this Dominion, must control this enterprise whenever it reaches its borders, to the exclusion of the interests of the rest of the Dominion, no matter how great they may be. I hope the Minister of Finance will not begin to do business in this most slovenly way. We are told by the Minister of Railways-but perhaps this is the particular function of the Minister of Railways-that there is not an atom of correspondence or a single document on file in the department in regard to this matter. That is a new way /to do business. Does the Government propose to hand out $15,000,000, no matter what reason may be urged verbally for it, to any worthy gentleman who happens to come along and see the minister and say:	I need $15,000,000
for a great national enterprise and I would be very much obliged if you would give it to me? The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways do not, as all responsible ministers have been accustomed to do in the past when companies and individuals approached them in regard to important matters, say to them, wiLl you be good enough to put your request in writing, state the reasons why you require this money, the position in which you are financially, the aim which you hope to obtain, the conditions under which you think the money should be granted and all other information that ought to be contained in any document presented to any minister who is going to deal with matters in a responsible . way. What would the right hon. Prime' Minister have said in 1903 if the present leader of the Opposition had then come to Parliament to deal with the proposal to construct a transcontinental railway and said: We have not a line or a letter of a document of any kind whatever in the archives of the Government to show what this proposition is? What would the leader of the Government have said if that condition of affairs had then existed? T say that such a position has never been taken in any previous period of our history. That being so here we have certain very important preliminaries which hon. gentlemen have entirely left out when they came to Parliament to deal with this question. We are told that this is a great national enterprise, that Canada wants to see it

finished, therefore give them $16,000,000. That is the position of hon. gentlemen opposite. No more argument, no more information except what can be found in the blue books and when w'e suggest that it might be wise, in the interest of the Canadian people, to give this as a loan, hon. gentlemen say: Oh no, it will not do to make this a loan because we gave more than this to theCanadianPacifiorailwayand the Grand Trunk. What kind of an answer is that? I listened in vain for the Minister of Finance to grapple with the proposition put to him by my honoured leader and to tell the committee why he did not deal with this proposition on the basis of a loan, but he has not told us, nor has the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister dealt with the question in a most gingerly fashion when he said that we must remember, take into consideration the fact that the land grants which this enterprise had received had not been made to it directly they ought not to be taken into account. My right hon. friend is too astute a gentleman in dealing with a proposition, either legal or parliamentary, not to know that it does not make any difference to the Canadian people in regard to the consideration of this question whether they got it directly or indirectly, the question is whether land which was the property of the Canadian people went to this enterprise for the purpose of ensuring the construction of a railway which went into this general proposition. If it did what is the use of my hon. friend quibbling by talking about the land going to them directly or indirectly? Then, when it was urged that in assisting the Canadian Northern you should assist it by way of a loan, my right hon. friend argued, as did the Minister of Finance, that the Grand Trunk had received more than the Canadian Northern. What has that to do with the proposition that a loan should be made, what possible relevancy has it to the suggestion that in giving aid to the Canadian Northern railway to-day we should give it by way of a loan? The result is that neither the Minister of Finance nor the Prime Minister has dealt with the proposition or suggestion made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition that it would be better to deal with this question in the way of assistance by making a loan along certain lines.
There is another phase of the question. In the absence of any correspondence or data of any kind furnished by the Canadian Northern railway, without any information being given to the House to enable us to ascertain whether or not $15,000,000 is sufficient to really aid this enterprise, we are asked to blindly vote this amount. Is the right hon. gentleman in a position to say to this House and to the country that if we vote this $15,000,000 to the Canadian Northern railway that amount will secure what we are all anxious to secure, namely, the con- I Mr. MACDONALD
struction of a third transcontinental line? Has my right hon. friend ever sought this information, is he in a position to say to this committee to-night that the Canadian Northern railway will not be back here next year asking a loan to enable them to fully complete their enterprise? Why should we not have that information? If Canada's credit is pledged to the completion of a magnificent transportation system which will involve a third transcontinental line in this country, the Government must be in a position to say, when they come to Parliament whether or not the aid which they are asking is sufficient aid, they ought to be able to tell us that it will attain the end that we all desire. The Government have taken no precautions of this kind. Either they know in regard to this question or they do not know. If they do know, they have not told the committee; if they do not know they are to be condemned because I submit that the most ordinary man, let alone a representative and trustee of the people presiding over a department or a government, would have said to parties approaching him under the conditions under which the Canadian Northern people approached the Government in regard to this matter: We require a full and a complete statement of your-affairs, we have a right to know what assistance would have to be given to you in -orderto ensure the completion of your project. The Government are in this position, they are asking the House and the country to vote $15,000,000, but whether it will produce anything, or result in the completion of this railway, they do not know, and they are leaving it to the people of the country to suppose anything they like in regard to it. Now there is some information in regard to this matter that I would like the Minister of Railways to give us. I am free to say that I do not understand the principle in this very anomalous proposal under which you are going to make a grant to the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company for their line of railway 910 miles, and another grant to the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company, for 260 miles of railway, two separate and distinct companies, while you propose to take from a third company, legally and in every other sense existing apart, and absolutely unconnected with two companies receiving the grant, the $7,000,000 of stock. You are giving the Canadian Northern Ontario Company and the Canadian Northern Alberta Company $16,000,000. They are not giving you anything for it, but the Canadian Northern Railway Company are going to . give you $7,000,000. We pay $16,000,000 at 228 per share, and you are handing over $16,000,000 to two different companies at the instance of the Canadian Northern Railway. Here is the situation in regard to the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Com-

pany. I find in tiie blue-book relating to railway statistics, that the total capital of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company is $250,000. That is the amount of stock that has been issued, and the funded debt of that railway amounts to $12,311,000, which means that on an issued capital of one quarter of a million, the Canadian Northern Ontario Company have issued bonds or debentures to the amount of $12,300,000. The capitalization of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, which is called the parent company, is said to be $70,000,000. No information whatever is to be had in this blue-book of railway statistics, to show whether or not the Canadian Northern Alberta Company has any status whatever. We have, therefore, no source to which we can go to ascertain what their capital is, or what their present debt is, or what their financial position generally is. I endeavoured to get from the Minister of Finance this afternoon some information upon that point, but he did not have it, just as he did not have the statement, which he ought to have had, and which the Minister of Railways may be able to give us, showing how much actual cash in the way of subsidies has been granted to the Canadian Northern Railway Company in the past in connection with the construction of their enterprises. The Minister of Finance was so anxious to elaborate the technical argument he was making, as to what rights accrued, and as to what the necessities were for the construction of the transcontinental line, that he declined to give us any information in regard to that matter. The result is that while we know that the Canadian Northern Railway Company is the parent company, and while it is apparent that you are going to give money to the Canadian Northern Ontario Company and to the Canadian Northern Alberta Company, and that you are going to get stock from the Canadian Northern Railway Company- that is one thing, but when we want to find out what subsidies were given to these different companies, what actual amount of subventions have been received by them out of the treasury, we are told that it is of no consequence, and that the only thing we have to consider is the question of what was given to aid the construction of the transcontinental line.


Mr. NICKLE:: It is in the blue-book.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will my hon. friend be good enough to show me any information here as to the Canadian Northern Alberta Company.


William Folger Nickle: No, because it did not get any subsidy, that is the reason why it is hot there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend seems to know more than the Minister of Railways, or the Minister of Finance. Perhaps he can give us the information as to what they did receive.


William Folger Nickle: As far as I can make out from this blue book, they have received $9,700,000, including municipal aid. It is set forth in the bine book.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the minister looks at the blue book he will find a list of companies there, and he will not find the Canadian Northern Alberta Company among them.


Francis Cochrane: It is under construction, and is not in operation; that is the reason why it is not there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps my hon. friend will be able to give us the information which I am suggesting he should have. Surely he has got some information outside of what is contained in this blue book.


William Folger Nickle: There was no subsidy.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friends who are acting as a sort of assistant Ministers of Railways, seem to be full of information, if the ministers are not, in regard to this question. In response to a question of mine this afternoon, the Minister of Finance was unable to tell us whether the Canadian Northern Alberta Company was incorporated by the Dominion or by the province. That is just what I would like to know. The next thing I would like to have, is a categorical statement by the minister or by his assistants as to how much money in actual subsidies has been paid out to those different subsidiary enterprises, and how much money the country is already committed to by way of resolution or agreement.


Francis Cochrane: I gave you that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister's information on this question is certainly rather crude. I do not think the ministers have compared their notes. I find for instance, as will be found in ' Hansard,' that the Minister of Railways the other day told us that the total amount of guarantees by the Dominion Government to all the lines of the Canadian Northern Company was only $16,432,000.


Francis Cochrane: My hon. friend is wrong. If he reads the question he will see that I referred to lines in operation, and that makes all the difference in the world.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do I understand the minister to differentiate between lines operated and lines that are not ?


Francis Cochrane: The question distinctly says routes in operation, and we gave the information exactly.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then the minister wants us to believe that the Canadian Northern Kailway Company which now controls and operates 5,969 miles of railway, has received up to the present time, through guarantees from the Dominion Government to ensure construction, only $16,000,000 ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then what becomes of the statement of the Minister of Finance this afternoon in which he gave the figure as $122,000,000.


Francis Cochrane: The line from Montreal to Port Arthur is not in operation, and that accounts for one thousand miles.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The figures given by the Minister of Finance this afternoon, were $58,000,000, and the total guarantee to the whole enterprise was $122,000,000. That is what the Minister of Finance told us, and he also urged the view that there would be $145,000,000 received by the companies in securities. But the Minister of Finance declined to discuss the question as to the amount of value of the lands which the Canadian Northern Company had obtained. I hope the minister will give a statement of the actual amount of subsidies paid in addition to the guarantee of bonds.


Francis Cochrane: I gave it this afternoon.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Francis Cochrane: I will read it again.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do so, and we will be that much ahead.


Francis Cochrane: Certainly; cash subsidies from Ottawa to Hawkesbury, $367,872; Stanley to Fort Frances $1,355,326; Fort Frances to Rainy River $179,200; Yellowhead Pass to Vancouver, $6,180,000; by the proposed legislation $14,000,000; that is all on the main line.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: ported on reasonable and good grounds, it is the line between Toronto and Ottawa.
The general impression of the public is that all the bulk of the grain trade of the Northwest goes out of the country . That is a great error, because untold millions of grain from our Canadian Northwest is ground in our own mills. Look at the area of country that will be opened up by this railway company in their branch from a point on Georgian bay across to Trenton, Belleville, Kingston and all these points at which there are large flour mills. It will be a new means of communication to bring to these many flour mills all through that part of central Ontario grain in addition to that which is now brought by the Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Pacific railway. Therefore, I am going to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), because I believe it is in the interests of the province of Ontario from a milling point of view that large quantities of grain should be brought into that part of the country by this railway, as well as by the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk. There is another reason, that it will build up Canadian trade on the great lakes by carrying 25,000,000 bushels of grain for the purposes of the Canadian Northern rail-way instead of having American vessels take it down to Buffalo.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wish to
answer an inquiry made by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), who is out at present, as to the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company. That company was incorporated by chapter 6 of the statutes of 1910, and succeeded the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company. Its capital stock is $3,000,000, and its bonds, as the former Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) said this afternoon, were guaranteed to the extent of $13,000 a mile for 25 miles beyond Edmonton or Strathcona. And then for 150 miles at $25,000 a mile; and then to Wolf Creek at $35,000 a mile. They are three and a half per cent securities. In 1910, it was thought advisable to repeal the old legislation whereby it was provided that the aid given should be given in the event of the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific amalgamating with the Canadian Northern railway, and it is stated in the agreement printed with the statute that it was thought advisable to construct this railway under a separate charter, and the charter is set out as the second schedule of chapter VI of the statutes of 1910, which is a public and not a private Act. It is provided by section 10 that all these securities to be issued by the railway are to be guaranteed by the Canadian Northern railway, and this guarantee' is in fact endorsed upon all the securities upon which the Government has endorsed its guarantee. So that the Government in this $7,000,000 of stock, has a
Mr. BENNETT (East Simcoe).
direct interest in the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company to the extent 1 have just mentioned.
Amendment (Mr. German) negatived.


Frank Oliver: It is almost necessary to make an apology for speaking at this late hour of the night and this late day of the session upon so trifling a matter as this gift of $15,000,000 in what probably will be known hereafter as the quarter-billion dollar session of the Canadian Parliament. An apology for taking up the time is perhaps all the more necessary from the fact that as matters stand today debate in this House is at the discretion of the Government, and whatever proposition the Government of the day may see fit to put before Parliament it is within the power of that Gov-ernmen to put that measure through regardless of what any minority may say or do.
In regard to the merits of the question, I do not wish to discuss at length the financial side. Aid to railways is given, I take it-or should be given-in the interests of the people rather than in the interests of the railway company. Or, admitting that the aid given to the railway company is in the interests of the Tailway company, it is presumed that the intention of Parliament is that it shall be also in the interests of the people. My objection to the proposal now before the committee is that it is not, so far as I can gather, considered with due regard to the interests of the people. It is a ease of paying $15,000,000 for the benefit of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. I do not object to the paying of $15,000,000, but I want the payment to be for the benefit of the Canadian people as well as for the benefit of the railway company. I do not wish to counter any of the complimentary statements that have been made in regard to the Canadian Northern railway enterprises by the Minister of Railways, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. It is recognized that in a country of such vast extent as Canada questions of transportation must have first place if there is to be development of our country. And I must say that, for my part, I am willing to favourably recognize the effort of the Government to get rid of what appears to be an inconvenient surplus by aiding railway transportation rather than by dividing it up among the constituencies with a view to political effect more than to public benefit.
In regard to the merits of the Canadian Northern railway enterprise, while the construction of a third transcontinental railway, is of course flattering and gratifying to the national pride of Canadians, and while it must be of some material advantage to the people of Canada, I am going to take the liberty of pointing out

that this Canadian Northern railway, considered as a transcontinental enterprise is not exactly on the same footing as either the Canadian Pacific railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. I speak of this, not with a view to belittling the company or the benefits it will bring, but so that we shall have a fair understanding of the exact condition. Everybody admits that the Canadian Pacific railway was essentially a pioneer enterprise. It will have to be admitted that in large part the Grand Trunk Pacific was as essentially a pioneer enterprise. The Canadian Northern railway, in that part of its line which lies between Winnipeg and Edmonton was a pioneer enterprise, but that part of its line from Edmonton to the Pacific coast, and that part of its line proposed by this resolution to be aided from Port Arthur to Ottawa is not a pioneer enterprise to anything like the degree that either the Canadian Pacific railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not we require a
third transcontinental line as a spout for western grain? And hence is not the construction of the road from Fort William to the sea-board absolutely essential if the value of the other lines is to be maintained?


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to belittle
the value of the enterprise but to object to the method of dealing with the question presented to the House by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister when they instituted a comparison of the merits of the three transcontinental roads. If we admit that the merits are equal, the conditions surrounding the construction of these three roads is not equal. Take that part of the Canadian Northern railway line from Edmonton westward. From Edmonton to Tete Jaune Cache, a distance of 300 miles, the Canadian Northern parallels, within a stone's throw, the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, which is already constructed. Every pound of supplies and materials for the construction of the Canadian Northern railway from Edmonton for the construction of the Canadian Northern railway from Edmonton to Tete Jaune Cache was hauled over Grand Trunk Pacific rails.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the hon. gentleman will admit that the railways had to run parallel; they went through the same pass; it was a physical necessity.
Mr. OLIVER- If my hon. friend will permit me to state the facts, I will make my own argument?


Mr. HUGHES (Minister of Militia):: Which line was laid out first?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that. I
know that both companies made surveys
by way of the Peace river, and both companies decided to go by way of Jasper Pass. I want to lay down the absolute fact that the conditions surrounding the construction of the two railways are not the same; therefore the demand for equal aid is not based on a solid foundation.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it not a fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific railway parallels the Canadian Pacific railway for a considerable distance west of Winnipeg?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: And	without any
physical necessity.


Frank Oliver: No, I would not say'
that.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not aware that there was any physical necessity.


Frank Oliver: The Grand Trunk Pacific was laid out as a transcontinental line, and Winnipeg and Edmonton were the fixed points. After the Grand Trunk survey was completed, the Canadian Pacific railway made a survey, and actually built a line paralleling the Grand Trunk Pacific road. Construction was carried on by both lines at the same time, but my contention is that the Canadian Pacific railway were the aggressors, not the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. However, that is aside from the point I wish to make. In the first place, for 300 miles west of Edmonton, the Canadian Northern has the benefit of the existing Grand -Trunk Pacific railway for the building of its road. In the second place, it does pot develop new country for that 300 miles, where the Grand Trunk Pacific has already developed it, the latter road having been built under absolutely pioneer and exceedingly difficult conditions. From Kamloops, in British Columbia, to Port Mann, the condition is identical. The Canadian Northern absolutely parallels the existing Canadian Pacific railway, having all the advantages of the existence of that road to aid it in construction, at the same time not developing one foot of new territory for that whole distance. On the vdiole route from Edmonton to Port Mann the Canadian Northern will develop about 200 miles of new country, from TSte Jaune Cache to Kamloops down the North Thompson river. That is all the country through -which it runs that is not already amply served by an existing railway. Therefore when a comparison is made between the conditions on the Canadian and Grand Trunk Pacific railways and the Canadian Northern, I say, that so far as the line from Edmonton to the coast is concerned, the comparison does not hold.
In regard to the line now being aided between Ottawa and Port Arthur, for seventy miles east of Port Arthur, the Canadian Northern rails are within touch-

ing distance of the Canadian Pacific, and from Sudbury or its vicinity to Ottawa, in the nature of things, the Canadian Northern must parallel at no very great distance the Canadian Pacific. Between Sudbury and Nipigon, the Canadian Northern have the advantage of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific railway in the construction of their railway. I do not make these statements for the purpose of in any degree belittling the enterprise of the men who constitute the Canadian Northern Railway Company, nor for the purpose of belittling the value of the enterprise to the country, but only to bring out absolutely that the comparison made by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister as between the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk Pacific railways as to cost was absolutely unfair and unwarranted by the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the hon. gentleman is agreed that the valuable part of the railway is between Edmonton and Fort William?


Frank Oliver: Yes, that is, of course,
the valuable part of the road. I do not wish for a moment to belittle the value of the road that the Government is aiding; I am dealing with one feature of the matter and confining myself absolutely to that feature. I have said that I do not want to go into the merits or the method of expenditure; what I want to go into is the question of the results of the expenditure. We talk of the millions that are invested in these different railroad enterprises. Let me suggest that wherever those millions come from; whether they come from the pocket of the investor or from the treasury of Canada, the returns on the investment have absolutely to come out of the pockets of the people who use the railroad. Therefore, the whole question is contained in the one word, 'rates.' It is that feature of the question to which I wish to- direct the attention of the House. There have been, complaints in the prairie west of a condition of freight rates considered to be burdensome to the people, detrimental to the progress of the country, and therefore injurious to Canada as a whole.


Francis Cochrane: Is not the greatest
. hardship in the West the fact that there are not enough roads?


Frank Oliver: That is a hardship on
the people w'ho have not the advantage of railroads, but it is also a hardship on the people who have railroads to pay too much for the service afforded by them. There is in the West a condition that is the cause of grave objection on the part of the people. It is a burden upon the people, it is a hindrance to the progress of the country, and it is a matter that is entitled to the Mr. OLIVER.
grave attention of the Government and Parliament of Canada. I will only mention a single instance. We have, in Alberta, coal. Coal is one of the greatest necessities of life throughout all that area between Winnipeg and the Rocky mountains and it is a fact that because of the condition of railroad rates the coal of Lethbridge and of Canmore cannot be sold east, I believe, of Regina, that is to say the centre of the province of Saskatchewan, in competition with coal that is mined in Pennsylvania, is taken 'by rail from two to three hundred miles from the mines to the lake port, is taken by vessels from the lake port to Fort William, and is taken by rail four hundred, five hundred and six hundred miles to meet the competition of Alberta coal. This House will understand that there is profit to the people of Canada in the mining of Alberta coal and that the market for Alberta coal depends upon the railroad rates by which that coal is transported from the mines to the consumer; and if the rates are deliberately adjusted, as they are deliberately adjusted, by railways, to promote the transportation of Pennsylvania coal to the detriment of the transportation of Alberta coal, there is an injury to the industrial development of Alberta and an injury to the welfare and prosperity of the whole western country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose my hon. friend knows that Alberta coal is now sold in Winnipeg, the briquettes of Bankhead and the Lethbridge coal find a ready market there under existing rates. Some years ago Regina was the furthest point east and then Brandon, but now you can buy the Bankhead briquettes and also the Lethbridge coal, and large quantities are sold there by Osier, Hammond & Nanton.


Frank Oliver: What my hon. friend says establishes beyond question the reason for the conditions I have stated to have existed during so many years. What he has said has established the desirability of amending that condition as far as possible. The fact that it has been amended to some degree is, of course, an advantage, but it would be a greater advantage if it were more greatly amended, because I think he will agree that even yet the sales of Albdrta coal in Winnipeg are not large, they are only beginning. There are one hundred thousand people in Winnipeg requiring that coal and we sell a trifling amount at the present time. That is an instance where the development of a great western industry is retarded by reason of the railway rates, and this Government brings before Parliament to-day a proposal to vote to one of these railway companies a gift of $15,000,000 and takes no measure whatever to that effect. This is only one fact out of a general condition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does not the fact that we are making a gift, as my hon. friend has said, to this railway company obviate the necessity of its payment of interest by way of fixed charges and thereby makes possible the Railway Commission giving us a lesser rate than would be given if we created securities, thereby putting a fixed charge on the railway?


Frank Oliver: There is no question about what my hon. friend says. There is no doubt that it would be right and proper for the Railway Commission, if it was fixing rates, to take that question into consideration but I have not yet heard that the Railway Commission has ever done so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is before it now, the coal, cement and lumber rates are before the board.


Frank Oliver: I have great faith in the Kaiiway Commission and I absolutely agree with my hon. friend that money contributions by the Parliament of Canada should not be reckoned as capital of a railway compafxy; but I am here on my responsibility as a representative of the people of the West with certain authority in my hands as a member of Parliament. I consider that it is up to me, when I am giving $15,000,000 to the Canadian Northern, that in that gift I should take measures to see that the people whom I represent get the benefit of that gift, and I will not ask the Railway Commission to do for me what I ought to do for myself.
I am not suggesting a this _ particular. It will within the recollection of this House that in 1897 rnent of Canada made a proposal to Parlia ment on very much the same lines as this which is before Parliament to-day, a pro posal to give $11,000 a mile aid to the Can adian Pacific railway to construct their line from Lethbridge to Kootenay Landing To: the purpose of bringing the trade of ths mining country of southern British Col
new line in probably be members oi the Governumbia in touch with the railway systems and the business of Canada at large. Surely such a proposal as that had merit in itself. Here was a piece of country producing traffic to an enormous degree. Mining was very prosperous at that time, but all the supplies for the mining country came from the United States. The trade was entirely with the United States. Surely the building of a piece of road that would give connection between the railway system and the business of Canada and that mining country might^ very well rest on its merits. $11,000 a mile of cash subsidy without any further consideration was just as fully justifiable in that case as the proposal of $12,000 per mile in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the fact that the province of British Columbia had given coal mines to build the whole of it which are now the property of Senator Jaffray and J. J. Hill.


Frank Oliver: Surely just as in the case of the Canadian Northern, the province of Ontario has given 2,000,000 acres in Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With restrictions
against all mineral rights.


Frank Oliver: But that has nothing to
do with the case. What I want to point out is that when a similar condition existed in 1898 the late Government dealt with the matter as I would suggest that this Government should deal with this matter now. And in granting aid make conditions as to specific reductions in rates, so that there would be no question that the people who paid the money would get the benefit of that money.


An hon. MEMBER:: There was no Railway Commission then.


Frank Oliver: There was no Railway Commission then, and as I said a few minutes ago, the existence of the Railway Commission does not relieve my hon. friend and myself from our responsibility to our constituents, to see that what we want done is done at the time it ought to be done. I have another precedent, Mr. Chairman. I find in the statutes of Manitoba of 1901, an arrangement whereby certain aid was granted to the Canadian Northern Railway Company by the Government of that province, and I find that the granting of that aid at that time to that company was again made the occasion of establishing a specific railroad rate in the interests of the people of the province.
With the two precedents, and nobody will deny that they are precedents, and nobody will deny the benefits that have resulted from the action then taken, I maintain that it is the duty of this Government on this occasion to take similar action, and to relieve the -situation that exists to-day throughout the Northwest, so far as it can be relieved on the Canadian Northern lines, by accepting the recommendations specifically made by the Winnipeg Board of Trade. I am sure that the Government has received a copy of the circular which I propose to read for the benefit of the House. It is addressed to me and reads as follows:
The Winnipeg Board of Trade, Winnipeg, Manitoba, May 15, 1913.
Dear Sir,-I am instructed to enclose to you herewith a copy of a resolution unanimously adopted at the annual general meeting of this board held May 13, 1913, and which in effect is a petition to the Government of Canada that if aid is granted to the Canadian Northern Railway Company that the company should be required in considera-
Ii783

tion thereof to make reduction in their freight rates applying western Canada.
This board, begs to suggest that early action on this matter by boards of trade is extremely desirable.	,
Yours truly,
C. N. Bell,
Secretary.
This is the resolution:
Whereas it has been reported in the public press that the Canadian Northern railway system has applied or will in the hear future apply, to the Government of Canada for financial assistance in connection with the completion of its transcontinental system;
And whereas the rates charged by the said rajhway for the oarriage of merchandise between points wTest of Port Arthur are higher than those charged for similar services in eastern Canada, and are in the opinion of this board excessive for the services performed;	.
And whereas the burden of excessive freight rates is a grave injustice to the people of western Canada, and has for many years been a source of great complaint;
Therefore be it resolved that the Winnipeg Board of Trade hereby petition the Government of Canada, and respectfully urge (without expressing any opinion as to whether aid should be given by the Government or not) that in the event of its being considered expedient by the Government to grant the Canadian Northern Railway Company financial aid in connection with the construction of its lines, such assistance be given only upon the condition that the rates charged for the carriage of freight between points upon the Canadian Northern railway west of Port Arthur be reduced to an equality with rates charged by railivays in eastern Canada for similar services, except in so far and to such extent as the railway company may be able to establish higher cost of operation in the West.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that, in
terms, is just what is before the board now.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has drawn my attention to the fact that this question is* before the Board of Railway Commissioners. The Board of Railway Commissioners was established in 1903, and has been in existence for ten years practically. This condition of inequality of freight rates between the East and the West has existed during the whole of that time, and still exists. It may not be wise on the part of Parliament to say that the responsibility rests upon the Railway Commission to adjust that inequality. We had the judgment of the Railway Commission in regard to a reduction of express rates a short time ago, and we find that while they made a reduction in western rates, these rates are still materially higher than eastern rates. I do not say for one moment that under the terms of the Railway Act the Railway Commission were not justified in giving that decision in regard to express rates, but if I do admit that, then surely it is necessary, if we are to have in the West Mr. OLIVER.
an equality of local freight rates with the East, that this Parliament shohld _ take action. We may pass many years without an opportunity occurring, but here is an opportunity. We are giving the railway company a large cash subsidy. We are giving the subsidy unconditionally. I say we cannot justify ourselves to the people of western Canada if we do not take this opportunity of following the precedent of the Government of Canada in the case of the Crowsnest road, and the precedent of the Manitoba Government in the case of the Canadian Northern road, and make an arrangement now with the Canadian Northern Railway Company that will give the western people the same rates as the people of the East have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Regardless of the cost
of operation?


Frank Oliver: I am not making any suggestion as to what the Railway Commission should take into consideration. _ I want this Parliament to take the definite stand that the basis of rates should be the same, that is all I ask. I maintain that in the Railway Act there is no wording that can fairly be considered mandatory upon the Railway Commission to make the basis of rates the same as between the East and the West. In order that my position may be made perfectly clear, I will read to the committee what I propose to move as a motion later on. I desire to put in words as apt as may be, the purpose of the Winnipeg Board of Trade:
That the granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the condition that the said companies shall, within two months from the date of the passing of this Act, submit to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, a schedule of traffic rates upon the lines of the said companies now or Hereafter to be constructed west of Fort William, which shall be the same as now apply on the lines of the said companies in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, except in so far and to such extent as the said railway companies may be able to establish higher cost of operation on such lines west of Fort William, and the said schedule shall be subject to the authority and control of the said Board of Railway Commissioners, to be revised and adjusted by them in accordance with the foregoing provision
By this motion I ask Parliament to lay down the basis for the instruction of the railway commission that rates shall be the same in the East as in the West.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Has the railway
board that power now?


Frank Oliver: My reading of the Act is that while they have the power they would not be warranted by the terms of the Act in exercising that power unless they had instructions or authority from this Parliament. I only give my opinion as a layman and as a layman and a western man I

repeat that the Act has been in force since 1903 and these differential rates have been in force ever since 1903. Here is the time and the occasion that we can secure something in the interest of the country, and we will be doing less than our duty if we do not avail ourselves of that opportunity.
There is another feature of this rate question, namely, the rates from manufacturing or commercial centres in eastern Canada to consuming or distributing points in western Canada. I will not delay the House, but I repeat that the rates between the manufacturing centres in eastern Canada and the distributing points in western Canada are adjusted by the only railway we have now doing business, with a view of absorbing to the railway company in its rates as large a proportion of the customs tariff as the conditions will admit. It is because of that fact that the manufacturers of the United States and particularly of the western States, from which points the haul is shorter than from eastern Canada, have been able to do business in western Canada to the detriment of the manufacturers of eastern Canada. I am not able to prove that statement by a comparison of railway tariffs, and I do not imagine there is any member in this House who could take the railway tariffs and the rates affected, and make an intelligent comparison, but at the same time I will guarantee that there is not a manufacturer in this House who is selling goods in western Canada who does not believe that that statement is a fact. And if it is a fact it is detrimental to the w.ell-being of eastern Canada, and to some degree in western Canada. What I desire to suggest to the committee is that this question be dealt with here and now just on the same principle as I propose we should deal with the question of western rates. That is to say, that a specific agreement be made with the Canadian Northern Railway Company, bringing their rates between eastern and western Canada specifically under the control of the Railway Commission with a view of maintaining equality between the rates over the Canadian Northern railway in Canada and the rates over parallel lines in the United States. I know there is a general impression that the provisions of the Railway Act are adequate and that there is no necessity for our instructing the Railway Commission to make a general reduction in the railway rates. I find no such provision in the Railway Act. The spirit of the Act is the principle of preventing discrimination, and not the principle of making a general reduction.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: It is the duty of the commission upon complaint to do that.


Frank Oliver: I have read the Act and I do not gather that from the Act.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: It is the whole principle of the Act.


Frank Oliver: I disagree with my hon. friend right there. It is absolutely not and it never was the principle of the Act; the principle of the Act is equality; the whole purpose of the Act is to prevent discrimination.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: That is what I say.


Frank Oliver: There is no discrimination in a certain set of rates in Canadian territory, which are higher than rates in territory outside of Canada. That is not discrimination under the Act,' and yet it is just as effective in taking away business from the manufacturers in eastern Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the duty of judges* in a court to hear and determine a case; the Railway Commissioners are judges of a court of record exactly as in the Supreme Court of Canada, and they must hear and adjudicate upon the question which is now before them as to the discriminatory character of the rates in eastern and western Canada, just as the Supreme Court the other day had to decide the question of an election.


Frank Oliver: I was discussing a little while ago the question of discrimination between eastern and western Canada but just now I am discussing the question of discrimination or difference in rates between Canada and parallel lines in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is before the commission.
Mr- OLIVER: I do not see anything in the Act that would bring it before the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: case submitted.
It is evidence
in the


Mr OLIVER:: Suppose the rate from Montreal to Winnipeg is higher than the rate from New York to Winnipeg, under what provision of the Railway Act would a shipper have the right to ask reduction of the rate between Montreal and Winnipeg?


Mr BENNETT:: The case could be
brought before the tribunal. That is evidence. The conditions that exist are the tacts, and the tribunal has to decide whether m consideration of all the facts: the physical condition, the density of traffic the character of the traffic, the extent of it locally, and otherwise, they are justified in making an order reducing the rate' from Montreal to Winnipeg to the basis of the rate from New York to Winnipeg.


Frank Oliver: I will have to disagree
with my hon. friend with all deference There is not a word in the Railway Act from beginning to end that authorizes or



instructs or permits the Railway Commission to take cognizance of competing rates in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor is 'there a word in the Supreme Court Act in the province in which we both live that tells a _ judge to consider certain evidence. That is a matter that must be determined by the parties in submitting the evidence to the tribunal for its consideration. That evidence is a fact in enabling the tribunal to which the evidence is submitted to arrive at a conclusion on the case. That is all.


Mr OLIVER:: I quite agree with my
hon. friend that that is all; and, to my mind, it is not nearly enough. At this particular stage of the proceedings, when we are handing out $15,000,000 to the Canadian Northern company to enable them to complete their line of road between Montreal and Winnipeg, I say that we shall be doing very much less than our duty if we do not make such provision as will guarantee to our people that they will get such rates as will enable them to do business from East to West. The precedent has been established of making such specific arrangements on such occasions, and the results have been vastly beneficial. Such an arrangement shouid be made at the present time. It could be made at the present time, and I propose to offer a suggestion to the committee in that regard, and to move it later on in the House. My suggestion is as follows:
The granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company shall be subject to the condition that the .Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at any time, after the completion of the lines of railway above mentioned, require such railway. company as is then operating the railway system which includes these lines, to file a schedule of freight rates from such points touched bv the lines of such company in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as they may designate, not including points in Ontario west of Sudbury. to such points in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, touched by the lines of the said company as they may designate. And the Board of Railway Commissioners shall revise such schedule of rates so that they shall be no higher than the rates per mile charged for like service over railway lines in the United States and Canada between New York and Winnipeg by way of Chicago and Minneapolis. The said rates shall be binding upon the said railway company until further revised by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
The wording of this proposal may not be in proper form, but I submit that it is in sufficiently good form to convey the idea that I desire to express and to place before this committee and this Parliament as being in all respects desirable that we should
not vote this money to this railway company without a specific agreement that would protect the western producer in the rates whereby his products are distributed throughout the East and as will protect the eastern manufacturer in the rates by which his products are distributed in the West.


Francis Cochrane: I just want to put on ' Hansard ' a statement of what my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) wanted in reference to the total subsidies granted to the Canadian Northern Railway Company and all its branches, by municipalities, by provinces, and by the federal Parliament, up to the present legislation before the House. The total amount is $11,259,722.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of direct cash subsidies?


Francis Cochrane: Cash subsidies to all
lines by municipalities, provinces, and the federal' Parliament. $8,082,398 is on the main line.
Mr. (GERMAN:	How much is the land
grant?


Francis Cochrane: There has been no
land grant except that 4,000,000 acres-and thev were not granted to the Canadian Northern Railway Company-except the 2,000,000 acres in Ontario.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I see my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in his seat, I desire to draw his_ attention to a statement he made comparing the Dominion Assistance received by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, with that received by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company received no direct assistance from the Canadian treasury except the seven years' interest upon the western section and seven years' rent upon the eastern section of the railway, provided the contract is completed according to the agreement.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend has overlooked the implementing of the bonds.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not take that as part of the contract. With regard to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, if I understand the figures correctly, the direct cash subsidies are as follows:
Quebec to Hawkesbury, $1,194,000; Hawkes-burv to Ottawa, $367,000; Port Arthur to Fort Frances, $1,355,000; Fort Frances to Rainy River, $179,000; the British Columbia sppt.inn $6.000.000: total, $9,095,000.
The bonds guaranteed by Canada are $58,000,000. There is a part of the bonds of the British Columbia section guaranteed by the British Columbia Government which amounts to $18,000,000. There is a land grant which amounts to 15,000,000 acres.
Mr OLIVER.

My hon. friend the Minister of Finance stated that this should not be taken into consideration at all as direct assistance to the company, because the assistance was not given originally to the Canadian Northern Railway Company but to other companies, and the subsidies were afterwards acquired by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and they also took the grant of 4,000,000 acres. It would be very unfair not to count these subsidies in the construction of the railway. The reasoning of my hon. friend has no practical bearing. It is well known that the Canadian Northern Railway Company got these charters for a nominal sum. The subsidies had been granted long before to a company which had received them to build a line towards Hudson bay. They were afterwards , acquired by the Canadian Northern railway, and the whole of this 4,000,000 acres were applied to the construction of the main line of the company from Winnipeg to Edmonton. Therefore the whole of that must be held to have gone into the construction of the main line, with the exception of the branch line from Erbert to Le Pas. That cannot be taken as a part of the subsidy applied to the main line. The line from Erbert to Le Pas is about ninety miles. The subsidy was 12,000 acres of land, and therefore you must deduct that from 4,000,000 acres, leaving a subsidy of 3,288,000 acres, which was used in the construction of the main line of the Canadian Northern railway. What would be the value of these lands? That is a point to be considered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two million acres of that were Ontario lands.


Wilfrid Laurier: No. Four
million acres in the West. The Ontario lands have to be added to that. I do not know whether the Ontario lands were granted for the construction of the main line or not. What would be the value of these lands? If we put it at $12 an acre, I think that would be a moderate price-the company should receive that for them over and above all costs of exploration and administration. That would mean an income from lands of about $36,000,000. Let us recapitulate:
Direct cask subsidy	$ 9,000,000
Guaranteed bonds	 58.000,000
X i" Y[DOT]	 v [DOT][DOT] [DOT][DOT] 36,000,000
British Columbia provincial subsidy	 18,000,000
Total	$121,000,000
This will cover the	whole	line	from Quebec to Vancouver,	the	mileage	being as follows :
Miles.
Quebec to Montreal	 176
Montreal to Ottawa	 117
O' '' "a to Port Arthur	 910
Port Arthur to Winnipeg	 438
Winnipeg to Edmonton	 627
Edmonton to Yellowhead Pass	 260
Yellowhead Pass to Vancouver	 525
Total	 3,253
And for this they have received, as I have stated $121,000,000.


William Thomas White: 
William Manley German: I have already slated in the discussion in committee that I have no desire in any way to injure the Canadian Northern railway or its promoters, but on the other hand, I desire, as far as I can, to aid this great and useful enterprise. I think that Canada can stand three transcontinental railroads. I always thought the Canadian Pacific railway had received from the people of Canada greater aid than it should have received. However, that _ is practically ancient history. But during their construction they came to this Government for further assistance. In the first place they received $25,000,000 as a gift and also 25,000,000 acres of land. Having financed their problem and carried on their work as far as they could, they came to the Government for a loan of $25,000,000. At that time every man connected with the Canadian Pacific railway enterprise had pledged every dollar he was possessed of. The present Lord Strathcona and Lord Mount Stephen had pledged every dollar that Donald Smith and George Stephen owned; and many have done more than that, because I am inclined to think they had the Bank of Montreal pretty well pledged at that time. If that enterprise had been a failure these men would have been absolutely bankrupt. They laid their cards on the table, and said: We have done everything we can; we have confidence in this enterprise; we believe it will be a success. We have put all our capital into it, and we ask you now to come to our assistance and lend us enough money to carry out this great national enterprise. The Government of Canada said:	We will do it with the
security that you have to offer. They gave the security, which was practically a second mortgage. Why should not the same procedure be followed in this instance? Why should these gentlemen promote a railroad, own the stock, make millions of dollars out of its construction, and have the Governor in Council and the general public pay for it? It looks to me to be too absurd to merit the consideration of sensible people. I do not believe that the people of Canada are in sympathy, with the proposition which the Government is now submitting. I am not in accord with it myself, and, I beg leave to move:
That the said resolution be not now concurred in but that it be referred again to the Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to amend it by providing for an advance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by way of loan to tbe Canadian Northern Railway Company of a sum not exceeding fifteen million dollars for the purpose of assisting the company in completing its yearly construction; such advance to be repayable with interest half-yearly at the rate of four per cent per annum not later than the 1st of July, 1933, the advance to be secured by debentures charged upon the Mr. COCHRANE.
undertaking, equipment and property, rights and franchises of the company, and also upon the undertaking, equipment and property, rights and franchises of the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company, the Canadian Northrn Ontario Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company, ranking next after the securities already issued and at present existing against each and all of said companies, and also be further secured by a transfer to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada in trust for His Majesty, shares in the common stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company of the par value of fifteen million dollars which said stock shall be deemed to be fully paid up nonassessable and not subject to calls and to be transferred upon the books of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and which said shares of stock shall be on the repayment by the said company of the said sum of fifteen million dollars, and all interest thereon retransferred to the said company, their successors or assigns.
I make that motion because I do not believe that the Government of Canada should be a party to any corporate organization; they should not hold stock in a company or assume the position of a shareholder. It is bad in principle, and it would work out worse in practive. It would not be a good thing for the Government of Canada to be a shareholder in the Canadian Northern Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I would be a party to letting the companies have all the money they require, for which they can give security, but I will not be a party to consenting that the Government shall be a shareholder in the Canadian Northern Railway Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This resolution must
inevitably be out of order. It contemplates a money grant which should first receive the recommendation of the Governor General and then be moved by a member of the Government. It is not permissible for a private member to move a resolution of this nature.


Wilfrid Laurier: Before you
give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, permit me to say that the rule is that a private member cannot bring in any resolution embodying any charge upon the revenue. This resolution, however, proposes to substitute a loan for a gift; it does not increase the charge upon the revenue, but reduces it; therefore the point of order cannot be well taken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It implies a charge
upon the revenue; otherwise its object could not be carried out. In the first place, as I understand it, the resolution cannot be moved by a private member; in the second place it cannot be moved unless it is first recommended by the Governor General. I therefore rule the motion out of order.


Frank Oliver: That the said resolution he not now read a second time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of amendment as follows:
That the granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the condition that the. said companies shall, within two months from the date of the passing of this Act, submit to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, a schedule of traffic rates upon the lines of the said companies now or hereafter to be constructed west of Port William, which shall be the same as no(w apply on the lines of the sa'id companies in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, except in so far and to such extent as the said railway companies may be able to establish higher cost of operation on such lines west of Fort William, and the said schedule shall be subject to the authority and control of the said Board of Railway Commissioners, to be revised and adjusted by them in accordance with the foregoing provision.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am so sure that this resolution is in order for this reason, that, if I understand it, the destination of a money grant and the purpose and the conditions of that grant cannot be altered. This, I think, would be altering one of the conditions upon which the grant is made, if I understand it correctly. I would not like to be positive regarding it, I am speaking from memory, and may not have the exact words in my mind; but it is my present opinion that the resolution is out of order.


Frank Oliver: Might I ask in what way it would be possible for those of us who hold the views expressed in that proposal to get them before the House?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not, on the spur of the moment, aware of any way in which any such resolution as this could be worked in. It is quite in order to move that the resolution be not read the second time and agreed to; but such a resolution as this, affecting the conditions attached to the grant or the ends or purpose for which it is intended, would be out of order.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Is that a new kind of closure ?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Manley German: Of course, with all due deference to Your Honour, I think you are wrong-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Manley German: -but we will have ample opportunity to discuss these matters, both the resolution I moved and that moved by my hon. friend from Edmonton, later on. This Bill is not through this House yet, and will not be until these resolutions are on ' Hansard ' and are voted upon.


George Perry Graham: According to the intimation which I gave this afternoon in the House, I wish to move an amendment. without any discussion, as I stated my reasons then. I would move:
That the said resolution he not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to amend the same by adding the following section:-
The granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the said company shall he subject to the condition that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at all time3 provide and secure to other companies over the line of railway of the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company, situated in the province of British Columbia.

from a point at Yellowhead Pass to Vancouver at the mouth of the Fraser river, such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights as will afford to all railways connecting with the said railway so subsidized reasonable and proper facilities in exercising such running power, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with connecting companies and equal mileage rates between all such connecting railways, and the said board shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to be levied and taken by the company hereby subsidized: Provided always that any decision of the said board made under this section may at any time be varied, changed or rescinded by the Governor in Council, as be deems just and proper.
This resolution is in the words of the section that is in practically all the subsidy acts passed by this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think this resolution
is subject to the same defect as the others; it attaches a condition to the grant. Therefore it does affect the ends, purposes, or provisions of the grant, and these are the words by which I have been guided in my rulings on this resolution.


George Perry Graham: Practically the same
amendment was moved last session and voted on twice. I am not sure whether it was moved in the House when the Speaker was in the Chair, but I think it was, and it was voted on. It was voted on when the subsidies were being granted to the Canadian Northern Pacific.


Francis Cochrane: I think it was in
committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: It was moved on the third reading of the resolution to the resolution to subsidize the Canadian Northern Pacific. My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) moved identically the same amendment as that which is in your hands, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not attach any importance to that. I have only to say that, accordingly to my understanding of the rules, I have seen many things done in this House which, I think, were entirely out of order, and I think that this motion, no matter when made, according to my interpretation of the rules with regard to money Bills or money resolutions, would be the same last year as this year. I think it is wrong now; I think it was wrong then.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I desire to offer an amendment at this stage, and I would like to be permitted to say, with all due deference, that I hardly appreciate the theory that when the Government submits in this court of Parliament a proposition, we are to be told that no one can by any possibility suggest that any change be made in the final wording of that proposition, or that no member can move the House to agree that, the proposition submitted by Mr. GRAHAM.
the Government should have attached to it any condition, or that it be amended or abbreviated in any way. It seems to me that such a proposition involves the idea that Parliament is a place where the decrees of the Government of the day are simply registered. If, through the various stages of a money Bill, from the first to the third reading, no amendment could be submitted, and if hon. gentlemen may engage in the discussion of such a Bill, but cannot ask the House to come to any conclusion different from that of the Government, the whole thing is a farce.


Robert Laird Borden: That does not follow,
because the committee can always reject.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon.
friend suggests that the course is open to the committee of absolutely rejecting any proposal that may be made. That does not seem to me to be at all consonant with the theory which applies to parliamentary government. If Parliament is not to be able to review any measure submitted to it, if the final statute does not mean that it is the concentrated judgment of the representatives of the people who meet here, then of course, parliamentary government is a farce. The Government of the day could introduce a money Bill, and while Parliament might agree with the principle of that Bill, it might feel that there should be something incorporated in that measure. I propose to offer the following amendment, seconded by Mr. Maclean (Halifax):
That the said resolution be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to Committee of the Whole for. the purpose of amendment by adding the following:-
That the granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company shall be subject to the conditions that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at any time, after the completion of the lines or railway above mentioned, require such railway company as is then operating the railway system which includes these lines, to file a schedule of freight rates from such points touched by the lines of such company in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as they may designate, not including points in Ontario west of Sudbury, to such points in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, touched by the lines of the said company as they may designate. And the Board of Railway Commissioners shall revise such schedule of rates so that they shall be no higher than the rates per mile charged for like service over railway lines in the United States and Canada between New York and Winnipeg by _ way of Chicago and Minneapolis. The said rates shall be binding upon the said railway company until further revised by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
I offer that amendment with the view of encouraging trade between East and [DOT]V;s\

in this country. That proposition is one which, 1 understand, was specially dear to the hearts of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I assume that my right hon. friend who leads the House will be disposed to accept it. If when one of the important transcontinental lines in this country comes to the Parliament of Canada and asks for special and unusual consideration, and we undertake to provide out of the public treasury of this country the immense sum of money which is now being given to them, and we say to them that we shall provide as a condition of that gift such reasonable measures as will ensure some preference at least to the trade of the eastern part of Canada going to the West, it seems to me that, unless that proposition can be adopted in this House, and that condition affixed to this gift which we are now asked to make, the position is most unique. That it can be said that it is impossible that that amendment can be offered to this House, and that at any stage in the consideration of a money Bill, from the introduction of the resolution to the third reading, it is impossible to suggest that any change should be made, then all I have to say is that so long as the Government has a parliamenj-ary majority, why should there be any discussion of any question, why should any amendment be suggested, why should anything be considered at all? It seems to me that the ruling you have given Mr. Speaker is one which should be subject to revision. You have intimated that it was given hastily, and I hope that the reflection in which you will indulge, will lead you to the conclusion that this is only a reasonable and fair amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This resolution is sudject to the same defects as the others. If I am right with reference to the others, I must of necessity rule on this in the same way, because it attaches conditions to the grant, and that is affecting the ends, purposes and provisions of the grant. If it is the desire of the House that I should withhold my ruling on this until to-morrow, I would then be able to give the exact wording of May upon which I have ruled on the others. I think I am right, and if I rule at all, I should rule on this amendment in the same way as I ruled on the others.


Frank Oliver: In regard to my amendment, I should like to say that I resent very strongly the suggestion made by the Prime Minister. I certainly wish to push the motion I make to the extreme, and I ask that the matter be adjourned until tomorrow so that you may give it fuller consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have already ruled on that amendment. If the House thinks I should defer my ruling on this amendment, I shall do so.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no desire to prevent any hon. gentleman from making any motion in regard to these proposals, which he may desire to make, and which may be within the rules of the House. If Mr. Speaker should decide after further consideration that the motions are in order, they can be moved on the second or third readings of the Bill. My recollection of the practice is, that the destination of the grants cannot be changed, but I am not so sure about applying conditions.


Wilfrid Laurier: You cannot
change the destination of a grant but certainly you can apply new conditions.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not at all sure that my hon. friend is not right about that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The proposal to attach conditions would to my mind change the end and purpose, and it was on the strength of that I ruled the motion out of order.


Robert Laird Borden: I was willing to withdraw any objection on this side of the House if that would meet the views of hon. gentlemen opposite and be acceptable to Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am only the servant of the House. If it is the desire of the House I should put the motion, I am prepared to do so, but with the understanding that it is done at the desire of the House.


William Manley German: We do not want any
favours; if we have the right we have it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want the hon.
gentleman to accept any favours; I am merely trying to expedite the business of the House by the suggestion that we have no objection to the motion being put. It may turn out upon reconsideration that it may be regarded as in order but I do not know about that.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER; For my part I feel very strongly that the motions are in order, but so that we may expedite business the resolution may be adopted and the Bill introduced and we can consider the subject on the second reading of the Bill.
Motion agreed to and resolution read the second time and concurred in.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for and to authorize an advance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by way of loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of a sum not exceeding fifteen million dollars, for the purpose of assisting the company in completing the western division of its railway; I such advance to be repayable with interest
[Stage Direction]
half-yearly at the rate of four per centum per annum, not later than July 1, 1923, the advance to be secured by debentures charged upon the western division of the company's railway, and upon the undertaking, equipment and property, rights and franchises of the company, ranking next after the _ debenture stock of the company issued or to be issued under chapter 100 of the Acts of 1906, and the Act respecting the company assented to on the seventh day of March, 1913, such debentures to be guaranteed, both as to principal and interest, by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
Further resolved, that the Governor in Council may, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by any Act of Parliament heretofore passed, raise by way of loan in accordance with and under the provisions of that portion of chapter 24 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, relating to the public debt and the raising of loans authorized by Parliament, such sums of money not exceeding fifteen million dollars, as may be required for making the advance contemplated by these resolutions.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
George Perry Graham: What is the explanation of this?


William Thomas White: 
Frank Oliver: I desire to move, seconded by Mr. Buchanan:
That the resolution be not now read a second time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amending it as follows:-
That the granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the condition that the said companies shall, wdtihin two months from the date of the passing of this Act, submit to the Board of Raihvay Commissioners for Canada, a schedule of traffic rates upon the lines of the said companies now or hereafter to be constructed wTest of Fort William, which shall be the same as now apply on the lines of the said companies in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, except insofar and to such extent as the said railway companies may be able to establish higher cost of operation on such lines west of Fort William, and the said schedule shall be subject to the authority and control of- the said Board of Raihvay Commissioners, to be revised and adjusted by them in accordance with the foregoing provision.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That brings up the question on which I have ruled twice already. I have now the authority on which I ruled. The authority is May's Parliamentary Practice, page 616, where he is speaking of grants. He says:
Nor can the committee attach a criticism or an expression of opinion to a grant nor offer its destination.
Then he goes on to say:
Speaker's ruling 4th of August . . . though undoubtedly out of order, the amendments of this nature have been moved but the proceeding has been either withdrawn or sub s-quently negatived.


Wilfrid Laurier: That does not apply here.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, it is with reference to money resolutions.


George Perry Graham: May I point out what
has been the practice at least in this House in 1909. Resolutions were introduced and a Bill founded on them making a loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of $10,000,000. I find on page 5598 of ' Hansard ' that, on the third reading, Mr. Ames moved, seconded by Mr. Perley:
That the order for the third reading be discharged, and that the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with power to amend the same by providing that the rate of interest and charges payable by the company to the Government upon and in respect of the said loan shall not be less than the rate of interest and charges which the Government shall pay in obtaining funds for the purpose of the said loan.
That was voted on in 1909. I find on page 5603 that Mr. Middlebro moved:
That the order of the third reading be discharged, and tlpit the said Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with power to amend the same by providing

that the security to be taken and held by the Government for the proposed loan should include a mortgage covering the interest of the company (a) in the paid-up stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Tovvnsite and Development Company, and (b) in the branch line from Port Arthur to the main line of the National Transcontinental railway; subject, however, to any charges or liens now outstanding thereon.
I find on page 5625 that Mr. Meighen moved:
, That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole with power to amend the same by providing that the Dominion of Canada, in consideration of the financial aid which it contributes to this undertaking, shall receive paid up preference stock of the company to the amount of $10,000,000.
These three resolutions were moved not as to what the road should do in return for what it was getting, but in order to change the conditions altogether. If my memory serves me rightly, the Prime Minister moved a resolution to attach a condition to that grant providing certain instructions as to the carrying of the traffic to maritime ports. That was voted upon without any question, so that that is the practice of this Parliament, and the rulings of the Speakers of this House have never been along the line of the ruling to-night.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COCHRANE moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 244, to authorize the granting of Subsidies in aid of the construction of the railways and bridges therein mentioned.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Mr. COCHRANE moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 245, to authorize the granting of subsidies in aid of the construction of certain lines of railway of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company, respectively.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Mr. WHITE moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 246, to authorize a loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. L. P. Pelletier (Postmaster General) the following resolution was considered in committee, reported, and agreed to;
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act, and to provide (a) that any
railway mail clerk who, on the first day of April, 1913, has had fifteen years service, temporary or permanent, and who has given good and faithful service, may be given a special increase of $100, from the first day of April, 1913, but such increase shall not exceed the difference between his present salary and. the maximum salary of a railway mail clerk;
(b)	that the period of service of letter carriers, messengers, porters, mail transfer agents and box collectors in grades B, C and D shall be reduced from two years to one year; and (c) that the minimum salary of the said persons shall be $2 a day, and the maximum $3 a day.-Mr. Pelletier.
Mr. PELLETIER thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 248, to amend the Post Office Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways), House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide as follows -
1.	That the Governor in Council may grant to the Government of the province of Ontario, in consideration of its having constructed each of the undermentioned lines of railway (not exceeding in any case the number of miles hereinafter respectively stated) a subsidy not exceeding $6,400 per mile;-
(i)	For the line of railway from North Bay
on the Canadian Pacific railway to Cochrane on the Grand Trunk Pacific railway; not exceeding 252.8 miles.
(ii)	For the following branch lines of railway :-
(a)	From Englehart to Chariton; not exceeding 7.8 miles;
(b)	From Cobalt to Kerr lake; not exceeding 3.9 miles;
(c)	From Iroquois Falls to Timmins; not
exceeding 32.2 miles;
(d)	From Earlton to Elk Lake City (not
exceeding 28.5 miles;
(e)	From Iroquois Falls Station to Iroquois Falls; not exceeding 7.25 miles.
2.	That the subsidies hereby authorized shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada at the option of the Governor in Council, and may be paid upon the certificate of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals as to the mileage constructed, in such manner and in such amounts and subject to such conditions, if any, as the Governor in Council deems expedient.-Mr. Cochrane.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 2:
George Perry Graham: I call attention to the
fact that this is to be granted subject to conditions at the discretion of the Governor in Couneii. According to the ruling, Parliament has no power to make conditions. Apparently this Parliament

is giving the Governor in Council the power to do what it cannot do itself. But what I wish to call attention to is the fact that we axe agreeing to the passage of this resolution and the one concerning the Grand Trunk Pacific in order to advance them a stage, but with the understanding that discussion may take place on the second reading of the Bill or in committee.


Robert Laird Borden: We quite understand
that.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. COCHRANE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 245, to authorize the granting of subsidies to the Government of Ontario in aid of the construction of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway.


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

Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have directed the Clerk of the House to lay on the table his report on the classification and organization of the staff of the House, together with my recommendation in regard to the same.
On motion of Mr. Borden, House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. Wednesday.



HOUSE 0E COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 4, 1913.