BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-GRAND TRUNK BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. McKENZIE:: On the Orders of the Day perhaps I may be permitted to say something to the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. J. D. Reid). The first order which we are likely to reach is that for the third reading of Bill No. 33 respecting the acquisition of the Grand

Trunk Railway system. While we have very little delay in view after reaching the proceedings connected with the third reading, I would like to say to the minister that we are not prepared to go on to-day. Knowing that to-morrow will be a holy-day, and it not having been known that the Bill would be taken out of committee last night, the bulk of our members who are within reach of their homes have gone home and it is impossible to get anything like a fair representation of the Opposition in the House this afternoon if we are forced to go on to the vote. I would suggest to the minister that he stand this order until Monday night. We will try to be here on Monday night and I think the Bill would go through on Monday night or possibly Tuesday.


Mr. J. D. REID:: There are some other Bills on the Order Paper hut the ministers in whose charge they are do not happen to he present. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) has some, but he went to Montreal this morning, I think, with Cardinal Mercier, and he is not here. Perhaps we might go on with the Grand Trunk Bill in the meantime and we can discontinue the debate at any time. Does my hon. friend not think we had better proceed in the meantime?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Our discussion of the
Bill will be very short. It is hardly worth while to go on in view of the little we have to say. There will be a few short amendments but very little discussion and it will be hardly worth while to begin in view of the little delay we anticipate.


John Dowsley Reid: I see there are some Bills here which are in charge of ministers who are present. We will take these up in the meantime and perhaps later on we will discuss the question whether we shall go on with this Bill or not.


Mr. MURPHY:: Has the Bill as amended been printed?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: It is not usual to print a Bill as amended without special instructions. The amendments while important in one or two regards are mostly clauses struck out. There is one clause struck out and one clause in which " thirty " years is changed to "five." Beyond that there is no material change.


Mr. FIELDING:: Does not my hon.
friend think that a Bill of this great importance, when it goes to its third reading, should be put in its complete and perfect form before the House?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. It is in complete and perfect form. There would be no advantage in printing it for that purpose. However, we do not wish to take any advantage of the situation. I endorse the suggestion of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that we proceed with such other business as we can, depending on how long that takes as to whether it will be well to discuss later on going on with the third reading.


Charles Murphy: We might do as the Government did in connection with the Peace Treaty-have a certain number of copies distributed with the corrections made.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, we can have that done in the meantime. I will attend to that myself.	.


Mr. M. CLARK:: I do not know how far it is a debatable question but if it were I should like to protest against the school being run for the convenience of the truants.


William Stevens Fielding: That reflection on the Minister of Justice is hardly warranted because he has gone down to Montreal on very urgent business.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Justice went to Montreal on the assurance that what was said last night would be carried out and that we would go on with this motion.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey):: With reference to the Grand Trunk Bill, a notification was given to the Opposition last evening that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the third reading of the measure this afternoon, and if we did not progress far enough to reach a vote, the debate would stand over until Monday. That we should go on with the third reading this afternoon was the understanding.



TARIFF COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. VIEN:: I would like to inquire what has been done in regard to the tariff commission that was to have been appointed as announced last session. Has the Government appointed such a commission to inquire into the revision of the tariff, and if not, at what time can we expect that such a commission will be appointed ?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The Government has not appointed any such commission. It is the intention of the Government to

appoint it at some convenient time in the future.
GUELPH NOVITIATE.	.
On the Orders of the Day:


Sir SAM HUGHES:: May I ask the right hon. the leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) if the report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the Guelph Novitiate, with the evidence, has been laid on the Table and if the report and the evidence will be printed in time for distribution at an early date?


George Green Foster: The report, as I am informed, has just come in.


Samuel Hughes: And the evidence?


George Green Foster: I think the evidence is with it, too.


Samuel Hughes: We do not care for the report.


George Green Foster: I am not sure that the evidence is attached to it, but it very probably is. It has not been opened and it awaits the arrival of the minister who will be here to-morrow, and on Monday probably the hon. gentleman will see it on the Table.


Samuel Hughes: Might I inquire if it would not be well to consider the advisability of printing it? We care nothing foT the commissioners' report; it is the evidence we want printed.


George Green Foster: I think it would be too much to ask the House to order the printing of the evidence before the report is laid upon the Table.


Samuel Hughes: In case I should not be around then I want to get my shot in now.


George Green Foster: I will see that my hon. friend's rights are guarded.


Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield):: What body gives directions in a case of this kind; is it not referred to the Committee on Printing?


George Green Foster: The House itself is master and in most cases it is done by general consent; or it may be referred to the Printing Committee as a matter of course.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) moved the third reading of Bill No. 33,

respecting the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway system.
William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, the determination of the Government to proceed with this Bill under the circumstances of which the House is aware is another evidence of their resolve to jam this measure through the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: 1 am glad that my hon. friends have noticed that word " jam." I want to tell them that it is not my word, it is the word employed by one of the strongest supporters of the Government in the Dominion.


Arthur Meighen: Who is that?


William Stevens Fielding: An hon. gentleman asks to whom I refer. I refer to the Montreal Star.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: The Montreal Star, on the 23rd instant, published an appeal to the Senate as to what it should do with this Bill, and it declared that this House and the majority supporting the Government are " jamming through, during the dying days of a special session called for another purpose, a measure which many Canadians believe spells ruin for their land. The Government of the day has no mandate for the Grand Trunk purchase. It has been able to give no adequate reason for the questionable urgency of its ' haste to force the deal
through."	.	.
So my hon. friends opposite who ]eer at the word "jam" may possibly now see that they are not in the company of their own friends. I do not usually attach vast importance to what the Montreal Star says, but I am bound to say that my hon. friends opposite should pay more respect to its opinion than they are disposed to do today.	,
This Bill passed through committee last evening. It is not usual in a matter of so much importance to proceed immediately with the third reading of the Bill. I think there will be no case found where, against the protests of the Opposition, a Bill of this character has been proceeded with so quickly. However, the Government are responsible for that and they must take the responsibility. Another reason is this: I think it will seldom be found that a measure of this importance, a measure of a controversial character, has been brought

to a division on a Friday, when it is well known that many members on both sides find it convenient to go home, and therefore are not able to participate in the proceedings. True they may be playing truant, but still the fact remains that the truancy is not confined to one side or the other. Members who live within easy distance of Ottawa may be excused if, at the week-end, they should go home to visit their families. I can understand that those at a distance, like my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) have a different view. On this .question of going home we have had a change of front. We have had a pathetic statement by the Minister of Railways attributing to us on this side a desire "to go home." Norw the cry is heard on the other side; it is hon. gentlemen opposite who say, "let us get through and go home." Hon. gentlemen opposite have suddenly become anxious to go home. They have suddenly joined in this desire of the Government to jam this Bill through in the manner described by the Conservative Montreal Star. What reason has been given for this extraordinary proceeding with respect to a measure brought down in the last days of a session, a session called for a special purpose and not for this purpose at all? My hon. friends opposite are blowing hot and cold on this question of this special session. When we bring forward any new business, when we suggest that there may be some other questions to discuss, they say. "Oh this is a special session, we have nothing to do but the work of the special session." And yet when the work of the special session was completed, and when the members were about ready to go home, when, in fact, the leader of the Government told the members to pack their trunks and get out,-


George Green Foster: I never issued any such order.


William Stevens Fielding: No, the hon. gentleman did not put it in those words-and by the way we have abolished giving trunks to members-he did not tell members to pack their trunks, but he said that within three or four days the Government expected to wind up the session.


George Green Foster: I am.afraid that statement is not correct either.


William Stevens Fielding: My recollection is that my hon. friend speaking on Wednesday said he expected the House would be prorogued on Saturday.


George Green Foster: I said the hope was entertained.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend says that was the "hope" with regard to prorogation, so far as the Government were concerned- at all events the expectation was that prorogation would be reached within a couple of days. Is there any reason for this extraordinary proceeding? It would be incorrect to say there is no reason and I always like to be accurate in my statements in the House. It would be incorrect to say the Government have given no reason; they did give a reason. The President of the Privy Council-I am sorry he is not here to-day but he is absent on public business -gave us a reason and a reason apparently very convincing to himself and to his friends around him. The President of the Privy Council said that if this business was not rushed through now there would be opposition developed in the country-if this business is not pushed through now opposition will be organized. That is to say, if the people of this country had an opportunity of understanding this measure, then surely there would be a manifestation of public opinion against it, and therefore he said: Let us stifle public opinion; let us rush the thing through while we can and before the public can understand the true nature of the measure. Now, in so far as this is a question of public ownership I think the men-the thousands of men- who honestly believe in public ownership- and I know there are such, including a great many men in this House, although not all who are going to vote for this Bill-the thousands of men all over this country who believe in public ownership might well hesitate before asking the Government to carry this measure at the present time. I do not want to argue against public ownership. I only ask the House to admit that this matter of public ownership, as applied to the great railways of the country, is a large and important question upon which a great many of the wisest men in this country entertain a serious difference of opinion. Is it too much to say that? It is a well-known fact that while public ownership may be admitted in some cases, as applied to the great railways of the country, there is a strong feeling among those whom I have described as among the gravest and best of our people in this country who sincerely feel that this is a dangerous measure. All I ask the House to admit is this: That in view of that serious division of opinion which exists, in view of the gravity of the question, we might well hesitate to take the tremendous plunge proposed in this Bill. We now have 14,000



miles of railway under the control and
operation of the Canadian Government. That is a pretty big order; that is a pretty big opportunity for testing the merits of public ownership. I believe that when I say we should for the present rest content with that, that we should operate that 14,000 miles of railway for a little while, that we should prove if we can by experience that public ownership is able to justify itself-1 believe when I say that that would be a wise policy, I am saying a thing with which the sober-minded people of this country will agree. Fourteen thousand miles to-day under government ownership; yet we are asked to plunge into this large Grand Trunk enterprise.
I feel, Sir, that the information which has been given to the House on this subject is entirely inadequate. Members of the Government have shown plainly that they have not that knowledge of the question which they ought to have in dealing with so vast a measure. The discussion that has taken place, the answers that have been given to questions, all go to show that there has been a regrettable lack of information. I do not blame the Government much on that account; they could not, in such a short time, acquire the information. This Grand Trunk Railway system is a vast railway system, including railways, steamships, hotels'. There are many subsidiary companies, interwoven one with the other; there are financial communications between them; the whole system is one that no ordinary man could understand except after long study.
Now, there has been no adequate investigation into the condition of this Grand Trunk system. The only pretense at investigation-I will not call it a pretense at investigation, because for its own purposes it was a good investigation-the only investigation we have had in the matter is that of what is commonly called the Dray-ton-Acworth Commission. That commission investigated railway matters about three years ago. I think the inquiry took place towards the end of 1916, and in the spring of 1917 they made their report. That was a report on the railway conditions of the country generally, and, of course, it included a reference to the Grand Trunk.
Now, what information do we get from that report? In the Bill before the House we are dealing largely with the value of the stocks of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and its subsidiaries. The only report to which we can look with any degree of intelligence in this matter is the Drayton-Acworth re-
port, brought in under the circumstances that I have described. And what do they say? As respects the value of these stocks -and that is the main question in this Bill, after all-the Drayton-Acworth report says:
Even if the Government were to relieve them entirely, as suggested by their President, of their unfortunate Grand Trunk Pacific venture -and, as we have already said, we cannot think that the request can be reasonably Justified-it is evident that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is not and will not be for some time to come in a position enabling it to pay out any money at all in dividends. We regard the entire share capital as being intrinsically qf but small value at the (present time. On the basis of present value of maintainable lffSome the fair compensation would be very small.
That is the report of the Drayton-Acworth Commission:	That all this share capital
of the Grand Trunk is worth very little; to use their own words, it is of " but small value." These stocks, which the only valuable report available describes as of small value, we, by the action we are asked to take to-day, are converting into a large and extravagant value. We are taking no less than $60,000,000 of these stocks and giving them what is practically a par value by undertaking to guarantee four per cent on them forever. As respects the vast sum of upwards of $180,000,000 of these stocks which the Drayton-Acworth report states are of small value, we are going to submit that to all the doubts and uncertainties of arbitration.
All the information, then, that we have as to the value of these stocks and which is entitled to respect on this question comes from the Drayton-Acworth report; and that report, submitted by a commission of which the present Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) was a member, tells us that these stocks are of very little value. We are asked to convert them into a value of at least $60,000,000 as respects one stock, and heaven only knows what value may be assigned by the arbitrators to the others. It is on information of that character, on a situation like that, that we are asked today to adopt this Bill. I believe, that the sober sense of the country will say that we have not the knowledge, we have not the information, which would enable the House or the country to understand this matter.
The matter, Sir, is not being well understood in the country. I do not wonder that the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) says that if there be delay there will be opportunity for opposition. Take what has occurred in the city of Montreal. A Board of Trade is not always the highest exponent of public opinion; its members are only human and they make mistakes. But when

you get a body of men who are exceptionally well qualified to deal with business propositions, a body of men who are usually divided, as all men are, on questions of trade and politics; when you get a body of men of that kind absolutely unanimous in condemning a measure of this character, I say that you have a conclusion to which you are bound to attach respect. The Board of Trade of Montreal did not act in a hurry. They passed their resolution, and they sent a delegation to Ottawa who interviewed the ministers and received the benefit of such information and such assurances as the ministers could give them. The delegation went back to Montreal and made a report to the Board. The Board again assembled, and in the full light of all the information that could be obtained, in the full light of all that they were told by the ministers, they passed a further resolution declaring that this measure should not be enacted at the present time. I submit that when in this careful, deliberate manner a body of that character, especially a body composed largely of friends of the Government, reiterate and reaffirm their solemn hostility to this measure, there is grave reason why the people of this country should say: You aie proceeding with undue haste.
Other boards of trade are being heard from. We are told at times that the West is thoroughly alive to the desirability of public ownership. Well, the Board of Trade of the city of Regina has passed a resolution strongly objecting to this Bill. The Board of Trade of Sherbrooke, in the province of Quebec, has, as I read in the press, passed a similar resolution. I do not quote any of these as conclusive. I do not for a moment hold up the idea that the board of trade of any community is the wisest judge of all things. But I do feel, as I am sure the country feels, that when earnest business men, not animated by any party feeling, not governed by any desire to injure the Government of the day, men who are known to be friendly to the Government of the day, men who supported the Government of the day in times past and will probably continue to support it-when these men, after full study of the question, )come to the conclusion that this measure is being unduly pressed on the country, I say that is an opinion which the public at large will respect and which, I believe, will have weight through the whole of the Dominion.
I do not want to enlarge upon this question. There is no desire on my part at
least to obstruct this Bill. I have from time to time in discussing the various aspects of it presented my views with all earnestness and all sincerity, and I do not want to repeat myself. I am going to conclude now with a motion which summarizes in brief form much of what I have been saying. I move, seconded by Mr. Murphy:
That BUI No. 33 be not now read a third time, but that the House do come to the following resolution:
That the Grand Trunk Railway system, which the Government propose to acquire, comprises over eight thousand miles of railway line, owned, controlled or leased and operated by the Grand Trunk Railway Company and its subsidiaries;
That the parent Grand Trunk Railway Company has numerous subsidiary companies, and the system includes, besides the railway mileage herein mentioned, the ownership and management of hotels , steamship lines and other property;
That these railways and other property are partly in Canada, partly in the United States and partly in Great Britain;
That the obligations of these companies in various forms run into vast sums, and the financial affairs of the several companies are interwoven by guarantees of securities.;
That the parent Grand Trunk Company and its chief subsidiary the Grand Trunk Pacific Company are admittedly unable to fulfil their obligations to the Dominion;
That the information in possession of the House is insufficient to enable the House and the people to fully understand the complicated affairs of the Grand Trunk Railway system ;
That there has been no inquiry into the affairs of the Grand Trunk system since that which was conducted by the Drayton-Acworth Commission in the spring of 1917, which related to the Canadian railway situation generally, and incidentally discussed the affairs of the Grand Trunk Railw-ay system ;
That the said Drayton-Acworth Commission in their report say concerning the Grand Trunk Railway Company:
" Even if the Government were to relieve them entirely, as suggested by their President, of their unfortunate Grand Trunk Pacifio venture-and, as we have already said, we cannot think that the request can be reasonably justified-it is evident that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is not and will not be for some time to come in a position enabling it to pay out any money at all in dividends. We regard the entire share capital as being intrinsically of but small value at the present time. On the basis of present value of maintainable income the fair compensation would be very small."
That of the stock thus described by the Drayton-Acworth report as of small value the Bill proposes to place a perpetual Government guarantee of interest at 4 per cent on about $60,000,000, and to submit the valuation of about $180,000,000 to arbitration.
That the House is of opinion that before taking further action towards the acquisition of the railways referred to the Government should appoint a commission composed of persons of recognized ability and experience in, railway management, railway finance and rail-

way accounting, to make a full inquiry into all the affairs of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and its subsidiary companies, their assets and liabilities, the condition, of the railway lines and their equipment, the physical value of the properties, the sums required to put them in an efficient condition, their estimated earning powers, and generally into all matters in any way relating to the affairs of the companies herein referred to, and to make a full report thereon for the information of Parliament.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the desire of the House that I again read the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted first to commend the decision of the House that it was unnecessary and uninformative to read the amendment again? The summation of it all is that, at last after three weeks of long drawn out and wearisome debate, chiefly consisting of allegations of haste and of jamming, accompanied by the fact of unnecessary and, indeed, sometimes irritating repetition and delay, the Opposition has come to a policy. The policy of the Opposition divulged only now on the third reading of the Bill is to appoint another Government commission. This, I take it to be the outcome of the new leadership that has recently ascended to place and power in that party. I have sat in this House now for a number of years; but if there is one cry I have heard levelled against the Government more than another in the last two or three years from the hon. gentlemen opposite, it has been that this is a Government of commissions; that instead of doing anything, taking our courage in our hands and going ahead, we appoint always one commission after another to. find things out. It is some comfort to us sitting under those allegations, to find that, however recreant we may have been in that regard, we have at least an Opposition that is ready to go us one better.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say that they have been taunted from this side with being possessed of a desire to go home and quit the business here. The aspersion is quite true; they have been asking to go home for some time. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) now says that the boot is on the other foot; that it is the Government and the members on this side of the House who are anxious to go home. The only anxiety expressed on this side of the House has been to get on with Government business and all other business, to get through and to go home when we get through. The difference between our desire and that of hon. gentlemen opposite is that they want (Mr. Fielding.]
to get home before getting through, and we want to go home only when we get the public business done. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, after, as I repeat, some three weeks of debate,- because this	matter was introduced
on the 10th October and has been pretty much the only subject of discussion ever since, gives us a disquisition on the differences of public opinion in this country on the subject of government ownership, and he says that some very important men in Canada, chiefly in Montreal-from which city, by the way, curiously enough, has generated almost all the opposition to this Bill -are very doubtful about public ownership. We on this side of the House are committing ourselves to it, he says, and he prays us to go carefully and not to go too fast in this matter of government ownership until these douibting wiseacres throughout this Dominion make up their minds on this question, I have a suggestion to make to the hon. member in that regard. He now sits at the feet of the new leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). That new leader of the Opposition comes here, and the first day that he is on his feet in the House he attacks this measure because he says it is not government ownership at all. He tells us that we are not going fast enough into public ownership; that we are delaying for a number of years the right to redeem the bonds which will be issued in payment of the stock which the country will secure. Because this policy does not bring government ownership fast enough, the leader of he Opposition opposes the measure. But his subordinate-the term really sounds inappropriate-from Shelburne and Queen's tells us this afternoon: Oh, please just wait a little while until we have an opportunity to think; this idea of government ownership is so fearfully new to us and so unheard of throughout the country that we want you please not to go too fast in committing the country to this policy.
To the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, who has occupied positions of high trust and responsibility in this Dominion, who has fathered measures of far reaching and, I fear, unfortunate consequences to this Dominion in the periods of his responsibility, whose name, I see, appears affixed to that fateful document that committed Canada to the Grand Trunk Pacific policy in 1903, I put this question:	Has ever a
policy of consequence, great or small, received so lengthy a notification, as ample an opportunity for premeditation and consideration as has this policy now advanced

before the House? Suddenness! Lack of notice! In Canada we have been in government ownership and government operation of railways for years already, as far hack even as Confederation. As years have advanced, we have .passed more and more into those responsibilities, driven by circumstances sometimes faster than many people in Canada would like; but we have advanced along lines of government ownership just as every Government Of subordinate power, just as every municipality of subordinate power, just a-s every public institution in this Dominion has advanced during the last two or three decades in the same direction. As business institutions become public utilities through the march of events and the development and evolution of those institutions, they, gradually it is true, but inevitably come more and more under government operation and government ownership and control. We are only moving along the line over which the ages have moved.
But in any event as to this specific Act, what has been the notice to the Canadian people? On the 15th day of May, 1918, the leader of the Government in this country disclosed to the people of Canada through this House what the Government was directing its efforts towards, and why it was so directing its efforts. In the most ample way he madie /known to hon. members of this House that circumstances were rapidly compelling us to assume ownership, control and operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific. He went farther and stated that circumstances over which he had no control, circumstances, the unfortunate features of which were precipitated upon us by the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite years ago, were driving us, whether we were willing or not, to the goal of government ownership and operation of the Grand Trunk as well. That was on the 15th of May, 1918. Let me read' what he said:
I come now to the Grand Trunk Pacific. I regard it as inevitable, that for many reasons, that road should be taken over by the Federal Government. It is a national enterprise to which the credit of the Canadian people has been committed, and in my judgment it is expedient to sustain it and not permit it to go into liquidation. It is intimately connected with the Grand Trunk Railway system in the East	 The House and the country will be glad to know that the prospects of its traffic seem to be improving and I very sincerely hope that they will improve still more in the early future. That railway cannot be successfully operated without suitable arrangements with the Canadian Northern railway and with the Grand Trunk railway in the East. It cannot pay its .interest charges, and it is utterly impossible for
the Grand Trunk to meet the obligations which' it has undertaken in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific.	,


Robert Lorne Richardson: Whose words are those?


Arthur Meighen: The words of Sir Robert Borden, the Prime Minister, spoken on the 15th of May, 1918, or about a year and a half before the introduction of this measure into the House. He went on:
I think, therefore, it is absolutely inevitable that the Grand Trunk Pacific must be acquired.
I can only say that the Grand Trunk would no doubt be willing to hand it over to us to-day if we would relieve the . Grand Trunk of all its obligations in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific; it would hand over to us the capit il stock and be glad to get out of its own obligations in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific. But there are several conditions to he taken into account before any such proposal can be entertained, and so we are at the present time discussing the whole situation with the Grand. Trunk management.
That was as far back as the 15th of May,., 1918. He went on further:
Now it seems if we take over the Grand Trunk Pacific, that practically involves the taking over of the Grand Trunk railway as well. Further than that, while the present condition of the Grand Trunk is not prosperous tor many reasons, some of which doubtless it could not control, I believe that it would have reasonable prospects for the future if amalgamated into one system with the Canadian Northern and
the Grand Trunk Pacific	* may
say that we have negotiations outstanding with the Grand Trunk railway.
There was a notification to Parliament that the Government of the day was actually engaged in negotiations looking to the taking over of the Grand Trunk railway, and its amalgamation into one system with the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific. That was eighteen months ago. He went on:
They have given attentive study to the ques-. tions which are involved, and I have some reasonable hope that when Parliament is again summoned-
That would have been last session, not this session.
-that when Parliament is again summoned the Government may he in a position to place before it proposals which will involve the constitution into one state-owned system the chief railways of Canada, except the Canadian Pacific.
A notification to this House on the 15th of May, 1918, the second session before this, that the Prime Minister of Canada was in hopes that at the following session, that is, at the session previous to this, government proposals would be submitted for the consideration of this House looking to the

acquirement of the Grand Trunk railway. Those negotiations did not mature in sufficient time to be presented to Parliament last session in the form of legislation, but they are presented now, almost a year after it was hoped they would be presented, and of which presentation notice was given and hon. gentlemen opposite now make it their chief cause of complaint that they are presented too suddenly and without sufficient warning to them.
What was the attitude of the leader of the Opposition at that time? What did he say to the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the conjunction of events had hastened the day of government ownership in Canada, and was driving the Government as a matter of business necessity to the acquirement of the Grand Trunk railway? What was the attitude of the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier? Here is what he says:
The Government now proposes fcTlaunen into a new enterprise, that of acquiring me Grand Trunk railway itself.
He seemed to understand what the Prime Minister had said. He seemed to realize what we were confronted with. Did he take even a hostile attitude? Even had he taken a hostile attitude it would be no argument that there was no notification; it would be no argument in support of this complaint of surprise now; but he did not take a hostile attitude at all. His statement was rather encouraging to the proposals of the Government, because he realized that whether as a matter of theory he favoured public ownership or not, as a matter of stern necessity, from the compelling circumstances that surrounded us, which he himself had largely precipitated, public ownership we had to have, and public ownership extending to the Grand Trunk itself. Here is what he went on to say:
The Grand Trunk has been in existence about sixty years. It passes through one of the best parts of the American Continent. unaoUDtedly through the best part Sl~Ontario; it ougnt to
be, and it is, productive	That the
Grand Trunk Railway system can be made a profitable enterprise I have no doubt. I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters, but applying the ordinary principles of common sense, looking on the advantages enjoyed by this railway, its splendid location, its line from the great centre of Chicago to the fine harbour of Portland, I think that the Grand Trunk Railway system should be productive of good results and profitable returns. For the present I do not condemn the idea of taking this railway over.
The then leader of the Opposition in this House, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who had lived with this subject for many years, stood u,p on the 15th of May, 1918, eighteen months
[iMr. Meighen.]
ago, and receives with equanimity and even with favour the notification of the Prime Minister of Canada that the policy of the Government looks to the acquirement of the Grand Trunk, and now a year and a half afterwards the lieutenant of his successor stands up in Parliament and says: These things are so novel, these proposals are so sudden, it is so terribly unprecedented a suggestion, that for the life of us we cannot come to a conclusion until you have appointed another commission.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Did the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) speak in that debate?


Arthur Meighen: its own way and appoint another commission to find out what we ought to do. Supposing that commission discovers in a year or so, by the time it has got through, that the Government of this country is out more money in deficits on the unpaying part of the system than would have bought the Grand Trunk, lock, stock and barrel.
Fourteen thousand miles, the hon. member tells us we have already. Now, he says: "Keep that and let it test the efficacy of public ownership.'- There is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite; there is the cloven hoof disclosed. Just take the Government system as it stands to-day; the Canadian Northern in the West, the long reach of Grand Trunk Pacific at a cost of $200,000,000 and the long spoke of Transcontinental built by himself and reaching out through Northern Canada into nothing; " Call that " he says " your Government system and go to work and see if you can make that pay." Don't take the parent system, the big feeding system but just appoint another commission and you will have our support."
Hon. ; gentlemen know that we have no system now that can be called a railway system, because we have not the feeders for it such as can make it a success. They want us to stick to something which they know can never succeed, in order that government ownership may be damned forever by failure and their friends and associates may secure a domination of policy which will make well for them but which will not be very good for the people of this country. They suggest a policy of endeavouring to make the Transcontinental pay with no freight to go over it and make the Grand Trunk Pacific pay with no freight to feed it. That is a policy of failure. It is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite. A system that is not a system, a commission that would not be a commission; but a repeater, an extravagant and worthless duplication, evasion, drift and delay, dangerous, futile and expensive-all-these things are embraced in the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite. Beyond that they have no solution at all; they do not know what to do.
Let me attack the subject from another angle. The late leader of the Opposition took up an understandable position on the 15th of May, 1918. He said in effect on that date: You cannot make a railway system pay unless there are gathering feeders for these great trunk lines. \ railway system that is overloaded with trunk lines and without feeders is not a system at all. It is, in fact, a white elephant, as hon. gentlemen have used the term. But, he said that the Grand Trunk is a great

system; the Grand Jrunk has branches through the United States, traffic is gathered there and distributed through this country, traffic that represents imports of Canada from the United States. It has its great gathering system through Ontario and Quebec and through the north of the Republic, and he plainly saw, as intimated in his statement, that the trunk lines of this country might be supplied with freight and that would bring what would otherwise inevitably be a failure to a condition of success. That is understandable; that is reasonable. What would be his attitude if two years later he found his followers in this House-led on the one hand by a gentleman who says we are not moving fast enough towards Goverhment ownership and led on the other hand by a gentleman who says that we are moving so fast that it staggers him so that he cannot make up his mind and come to a conclusion-saying that we can make a great traffic line'without any system of feeders, that the Grand Trunk is a white elephant, and that we must keep our hands off that railway because the more feeders we secure the less likely we are to make the system succeed. This shows how far hon. gentlemen opposite have departed from the attitude of their leader- and at the dictation of whom? Who is the real leader of hon. gentlemen opposite in this fight? Who represents the real Opposition to this Bill ? Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that they are acting independently. I commented, as I opened my remarks this afternoon on the very curious fact that the opposition to this measure is generated from and revolves around the city of Montreal. It will be remembered that hon. gentlemen opposite, and particularly the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) in years gone by referred very sarcastically to the interests of "estimable sirs" and to big business in this country as opposed to the will of the general people. But I wonder how comfortable the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's feels to-day associated with and founding his doubts and his drifting shadow of a policy upon the resolutions of the Montreal Board of Trade and the manifest and only too evident hostility of the Canadian Pacific railway.
Very strange that in the city of Montreal, the home of the Canadian Pacific, a city that no doubt has benefited largely as a result of being the chief centre and fortress of that railway-very strange I say it is, that there should be found the whole head and front of the offending to the Government policy on this matter. The hon. gen-

tlemen, it is true, tracked over the whole of this Dominion in search of encouragement and landed at Regina. He says: Besides Montreal I find that the Board of Trade of Regina have actually resolved against this Bill.


Mr. COWAN:: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that at that famous meeting of the Board of Trade of Regina there, were seven men present and voting in a city of 40,000 people?


Arthur Meighen: I was not aware of that fact but I thought as much. I have some conception of how Regina will likely feel about this Bill. I think I may safely surmise as well that the telegraph lines had not been idle between the city of Montreal and the city of Regina before that Board of Trade met.


Michael Clark: Regina is quite close to Assiniboia.


Arthur Meighen: Regina is quite close to Assiniboia where recently they had a byelection and both candidates in that byelection, I .am informed, stood up for government ownership, and no candidate would have had a chance in the world there who took the other side of this issue. Let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) not deceive himself. Throughout Western Canada they divide amongst themselves but the people of Western Canada on this subject have made their minds up and there is no mistake where they stand On the question of the Grand Trunk. There is a considerable measure of so called liberalism in Western Canada, there is a farmer movement in that country; they make the same plea as hon. gentlemen to trust the people but they do not stop in actual practice where hon. gentlemen opposite stop. Across the floor of this House they tell us: We have great trust in the people; we have unlimited confidence in their capacity, but we cannot trust them to run a railway; they are not fit to run a great railway system. Although it might otherwise be a splendid thing to unify the Grand Trunk with the Canadian National railways, they say we have not confidence enough in the people of Canada to believe that they can make a success of such an enterprise. Such is not the spirit of Western Canada. Do- not let the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's deceive himself for a moment. He will not find many resolutions outside of Montreal in opposition to this principle. Possibly in the province of Quebec he may get some but I venture to say that he will get mighty few objections if there be first a fair presentation of the case to these people; even in the city of Montreal.
What I bring to the attention of the House is this: Take a look at the railway map of Canada. If there is one argument for this measure that is more forcible, more compelling than another in driving the mind to a conclusion on this subject it is the railway map of this country. Between the great cities of Eastern Canada and between here and the west, everywhere there is duplication, waste of capital and waste of operation and waste of management. Between here and the city of Montreal, between Toronto and North Bay and between points in Western Ontario and Western Canada. What duplication! what cost of multiplication of lines and officers-?


Mr. ROBB:: What duplication is there
between Toronto and North Bay?


Arthur Meighen: The Canadian National railways go out of Toronto northward towards North Bay, the Grand trunk goes to North Bay. Only this morning I had in my office a traffic expert of the Canadian National railways and he emphasized the condition of affairs between Toronto and North Bay. He told me that there would be an opportunity there for economies, an opportunity for the saving of coal, for the elimination of the small, half loaded train, for the unification of traffic. He explained that it would mean a tremendous saving of money if we could unify these lines and operate them as one system between Toronto and North Bay. You there see trains going out, one on the Grand Trunk, another on the Canadian National destined by shifting later to another line for North Bay and they have to go out only half freighted. Where two trains run between Toronto and North Bay you could run just one and a great saving would be effected. That is only incidental; only by way of example. The same thing exists from end to end of this country, but by unification, by bringing the roads into one system instead of splitting them as they are split up now in their operation is a cause of the embarrassment we find ourselves in to-day, we will have a practicable and perhaps a profitable method of handling the traffic of this Dominion. There is no other solution that has been found; there is no other solution that can be found.


James Alexander Robb: Is the minister arguing that there are two lines of railway between Toronto and North Bay?


Arthur Meighen: To North Bay I think this railway runs over another track in the

northern territory for part of the way. I am not quite sure of that, tout I do know that duplication exists between Toronto and North Bay. I know that I had it discussed with me this very morning by the traffic expert of the Canadian National railways. That was only one case-it happens to be one of those I mentioned-tout it was one of scores where, as he expressed it, there was waste and duplication of capital, of effort, of man-power, and of salary and expense-much of which could toe avoided under reasonable and proper government management, under reasonable and proper unification. Such are the great advantages to be sought. In addition to that one great object to be attained, there is this:	We
have by this method, and toy this alone, an opportunity to exact from the other partner to the transaction of 1903-4 some share or contribution to the tremendous loss that ensued from that transaction. There is no other method whatever of dividing the loss or .splitting in two the burden of disaster that came out of that unfortunate bargain. By all other means we bear the loss alone. By this means the board of arbitrators will be enabled to assess the value of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and to assess against that the responsibilities of the Grand Trunk for that enterprise, and by taking the difference between its value and the amount of the Grand Trunk responsibilities they will deduct that against the value of the stock of the Grand Trunk itself, and thus the Government will have charged against the Grand Trunk, the other party to the transaction, a share of the loss that pursued that enterprise-a share that the Grand Trunk ought to pay. Now if hon. gentlemen opposite can tell us any other way in which that loss ought to be taken from the Grand Trunk Company can be taken, I would like to hear their plan.
This has not been a matter of sudden adventure, It did take some time and a long time for the Grand Trunk authorities to come to the rather severe terms1-at all events severe in their eyes-that the Government proposed to them. And when the leader of the House rose, on the occasion referred to by the hon. member, and expressed the opinion that hope need not be given up of an early adjournment-even at that hour there was not any final intimation that the Grand Trunk Company were prepared to come to the terms the Government had advanced. They did at least come to those terms for not by one hair's breadth or by one jot or tittle had the leader of the Government moved from the substance of fMr. Meigrhen.]
the proposals which we had made long before. When the Grand Trunk's acceptance came the business of the Government was to lay that fact before Parliament and submit their proposals so accepted to the consideration of this House. That is the course we have pursued, that' is the course in which we purpose consistently and resolutely to continue, and all and sundry may take notice that the administration of this country, and the vast majority of hon. members who represent the Canadian people, have made up their minds that that course alone shall toe pursued, that the goal we seek shall be reached, and that nothing that now stands in the way of our reaching that goal shall be permitted to succeed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister of the Interior complains that there was a great deal of repetition in connection with the discussion that took place upon this Bill and that much of it was vain. Let me say with all due respect to the minister that he has not produced anything new in his speech this afternoon.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear. I agree with that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have followed his discussion of this Bill for the last ten days or two weeks and I heard nothing advanced by him. this afternoon, which has not been presented a hundred times.


Arthur Meighen: I think that is correct.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not say whether the repetition was vain or not, I do not wish to ascribe vanity to the hon. gentleman; but it was repetition and we will have to leave it to the judgment of the House as to whether it was "vain" or not. Now, before entering into a consideration of the amendment or the resolution that is before the House, I wish to remind hon. gentlemen and you, Sir, of the fact that this procedure is really jamming the Bill through the House as fast as hon. gentlemen can jam it. Whether or not there is a rule to that effect-I do not profess to be a high authority on parliamentary procedure-during all the years I have been a member of the House it has only been by common consent that a Bill would toe read a third time on the day that it came out of committee. This is a well-established practice in this House. Yesterday, under our rules, the Bill could not be read a third time; this is the first day that such a course could be followed. Now, how could hon. gentlemen opposite, or the Govern-

ment, force this Bill through more rapidly than they are doing? They could not do it yesterday but they are doing it to-day. We asked them to delay the third reading; they refused our request. Now it is sometimes fortunate that we have Hansard to establish what has taken place. The Chief Government Whip said it was intimated to us in the House- because what is said outside of the House I do not think is binding on all the members-that we must go on to-day with the third reading. I was anxious when this Bill came out of committee yesterday that we should know definitely, or positively, as far as was possible, when the third reading was coming up, and this, according to Hansard, is what took place:
Mr. McKenzie:	I should like to have some
agreement with the Government as to when the third reading of this Bill will be taken.
Mr. Meighen:	We will let it stand until the
next sitting of the House. That makes it subject to agreement.
What is clearer, Mr. Speaker, than this intimation to us that there was to be some agreement at the next sitting of the House as to what was to be done about the third reading. The excerpt I have quoted makes it absolutely clear.


William Sora Middlebro: My hon. friend has misunderstood my statement. I did not say that the notification or the agreement took place in the House. Last evening at the Chateau Laurier I spoke to my hon. friend and to the Chief Opposition Whip. I was asked to see a member of the Government and he advised me that the Government would go on this afternoon with the third reading of the Bill. I so notified my hon. friend and the Chief Opposition Whip.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I had a conversation with the Chief Government Whip, in which he suggested to me that we should go on with the third reading of the Bill to-day. I replied: "You see Mr. Robb,"-who at that time was within hailing distance of my hon. friend at the Chateau Laurier- "and if Mr. Robb finds that he has his crowd here"-that is the expression I used. Now I have not seen the Chief Government Whip since. That is the last word I had wiith him. I found on consulting Mr. Robb that he did not have his crowd (meaning members on this side). Therefore, the conditions that I submitted to the Chief Whip were not complied with and we were not in a position to go on. So I misled nobody and we are, I submit, entitled to the benefit of the record and are not bound by anything casual that may have taken
place outside unless it was a definite agreement. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if anybody in authority in this House agrees to anything, he should adhere to it but neither the Chief Whip nor anybody else can contradict what I said. I have not deceived the Chief Whip; I am not deceiving him now-I am not deceiving anybody. I am standing by the arrangement, as I understand it, made last night and also by the arrangement made as reported in Hansard that when the Bill came up to-day it would be subject to agreement as to when the third reading of the Bill would be proceeded with. We tried to have that agreement carried out, Mr. Speaker, but hon. gentlemen overruled us and went on with the Bill. I leave it to the good nature and judgment of hon. gentlemen opposite whether that is giving us all the time that is proper.


Mr. MORPHY:: The crowd is all there.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is only a small crowd; they are not all here. Let me remind the Minister of the Interior of the promise he made in connection with the time that he was going to give us. The minister said, page 1026 of Hansard:
Until an agreement was arrived at on each of those details of principle it would have been unfair to intimate that a final adjustment and arrangement was even possible. Consequently it was not competent for the Government to say that it was in a position to announce legislation this session until this very day. Had this legislation not finally been found necessary It was hoped that we might have reached an early termination of the session. Now that it has, the desire of the Government is that the fullest, the lengthiest, if necesasry, consideration be given in this very important matter by Parliament.
There the minister promised that opportunity would be given for the lengthiest possible consideration of this matter. He went on to say that it had been hinted in the newspapers that the Government were going to railroad the Bill through, and that nothing could be further from the intention of the Administration; every opportunity for the fullest possible consideration of the matter would be given. I invite hon. gentlemen to read the minister's speech as it appears on the page from which I have quoted, in which he scouts the idea that there would be any shortening of time for the discussion of this matter or that any advantage would be taken , of hon. members because of lack of time or opportunity to discuss every phase of the Bill. Now, we pleaded that promise to-day and asked for further time; our request was refused, and we are shoved right along.

So far as promises are concerned and expressions of opinion on this subject in the House, I wish to settle a matter of controversy between the leader of the Government and myself and between the leader of the Government and the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) as to what the leader of the Government said about the termination of the session. We might as well know exactly what it is.
I quote from Hansard of October 3, page 858:
Sir George Foster:	There is also this consideration to toe taken into account, that this evening we shall have one opportunity of going through those.
He is referring to certain notices of motion.
Next week we shall have an opportunity to take up those that are for the production of papers and that are germane to the session in this respect: that they give members information which they might be able to use between this and next session and for the next session. This session of Parliament was called, not for private business, but for one special purpose, and it has been confined largely to that, and I think the general sense of the House has been that it should be confined to that. The Peace Treaty has been disposed of, and the legislation necessary in order to carry out Canada's part with reference to that has also been disposed of. Those comprise the important business for which we were brought together; we were not brought together for the purpose of private business. I should hope it is the unanimous wish of the House that the session should end as quickly a possible, and there is no reason why we should not end our work next week. I think both the House itself and the country outside of us will rather be glad if that takes place.
Now, Mr. Speaker, nothing can be clearer . than that the intention on that occasion was that we were to finish the next week. Almost a month has passed and we are not through yet; but the minister will not admit that he gave us to understand that that was to be the case.. There is, therefore, no room for controversy on this point; what the minister said is there in print and anyone e&n see it.
One word about this question of public ownership, 'the minister says that we are going to take this road over as a publicly-owned property in furtherance of the policy of public ownership, and that it is to be linked up with the other railway properties which the Government own. I ask the minister, as did several other members, whether this property of the Grand Trunk, the Grand Tiunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern was to be subject to municipal taxation, and he said:	"No." Now, let
us apply the test of the British North America Act. the plain language of which we cannot dispute. Section 125 says:

No lands or property belonging to Canada oi. any province shall be liable to taxation.
That is what the Constitution says; yet the minister intimates that although this property will be owned by the Canadian people, it will be subject to taxation. Now, one of the advantages of publicly-owned property is that it need not pay taxes. It is one of the reasons why I could understand the Canadian people being favourable to the ownership of a large railway system such as the Grand Trunk-because they-would get the full benefit of its use in connection with the public business of this country; it would not be obliged to pay any taxes. These properties that we own, the Intercolonial and the other railway systems that I mentioned, are either publicly-owned or are not publicly-owned. One of the tests that we would naturally apply to determine this question would be:	Is
the property subject to assessment? If it is subject to assessment, it is privately-owned; if it is not subject to assessment it is publicly-owned. This property, therefore, that we are making such undue haste to bring into public ownership, as hon. gentlemen say, really does not come under public ownership at all; it is to be run as private property.
The minister says that on the 15th of May, 1918, the Prime Minister, in a speech which he made to the House, announced the policy of the Government in connection wdth this matter: that the road was to be taken over. Now, it is not necessary to say that the 10th of September, 1918, is a later date than the 15th of May of the same year; what the Prime Minister said on the 15th of May on a given subject would be considerably qualified by what he said on the 10th of September on the same subject.
We were told by the minister (Mr. Meighen) that a final and definite policy was reached on the 15th May and set forth in the. speech of the Prime Minister on that day. On the 10th September of the same year the Prime Minister sent a cablegram to the Canadian Commissioner in London stating:
Please inform Smithers with respect to his letter 13th August that I have consulted Minister Finance who has just returned as well as my other colleagues. The Government has not power to guarantee proposed note issue without the authority of Parliament and we do not consider it practicable to ask Parliament for such authority. The Government is disposed to assist in every reasonable way the maintenance of company's credit as is evidenced by the advance of one hundred and twenty-two thousand pounds on July 1st and by our offer of 12th July last to advance three hundred and eighty thousand poufids to meet fixed charges upon

terms which were regarded as reasonable but which the company declined. We shall be glad to have any further suggestions from Smithers as to methods of assistance. There is strong objection in Council to any Increase of our offer for the following reasons. It is most unwise and undesirable for a Government without the report of a commission or Board of Arbitration or a vote of Parliament to undertake a large annual payment which would represent the capitalization of eighty or a hundred million dollars. The offer already made is based on the Drayton-Acworth report which affords a sufficient foundation for Government's proposal.
If we go beyond the bounds of that report wo have no certain guide as to what we should propose. Council will not accept either of the offers which iSmithers put forward and unless they receive further offer before end of month they will consider negotiations at an ehd.
We'are taken severely to task because we questioned anything that was said by the Prime Minister on the 15th May in regard to this bargain. On 'the 10th September of the same year he writes to Smithers through the Canadian Commissioner that all negotiations are at an end unless a further offer is made before the end of that month. The blue-book that is given to us contains no such offer, no such proposal, nothing to place between the 10th and the end of September on the lines of those negotiations. Consequently, according to the proposition of the Prime Minister, all negotiations were ended, and yet we are ridiculed by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) because we did not know all about the matter, because we did not continue to think that the offer was all right; that the speech of the 15th May was all right, although the Prime Minister himself brought the whole thing to a conclusion and an end and threw it all to the winds on the 10th September of the same year. That disposes entirely of the accusation and upbraiding of the Minister of the Interior that we knew all about those negotiations, and that we should have complained against them if we had any complaint to make.
The agreement that is before the House to-day is not based upon any part of the Drayton-iAcworth report, and no authority whatever for it will be found in that report. The amendment that is now before us comes right within the attitude of the Prime Minister himself when he says, according to pages 14 and 15 of the blue-book, that it would be unwise for any government to proceed with a transaction of this magnitude involving a capitalization of $80,000,000 or $100,000,000 without a report from a commission. That is the attitude taken by the Prime Minister, the head of this Government, the right hon.
gentleman whom all hon. gentlemen opposite love to follow and quote whenever they find it to their advantage to do so. Nothing could be stronger than the declaration of the Prime Minister when he says: Negotiations are at an end; we made several offers to you; you did not take them; if you do not make a further offer before the end of this September, the thing is all off and there is nothing further about it; before we make any further advance, there should be a full inquiry into the condition of the road. Did that inquiry take place? Nothing of the kind. We have this lamentable condition of things in the House this afternoon. Possibly the best informed minister of the Government on this subject is the Minister of the Interior, and he makes desperate efforts to keep up with the times and the best possible efforts to to fill up the interstices, where he has no information. In those cases he tries to pull things together and to give what might make a presentable case as well as, or perhaps better than any other hon. member on that side. He tells us that we are unreasonable and not sensible in our requests for further information about this transaction, and yet with all his responsibility in connection with this transaction and when he invites us to speak about duplications and lines which should be cut out and how economies could be effected in the running of the road, to the very plain question whether there are two railroads belonging to the Government between Toronto and North Bay, he has to admit that he does not know. That is evidence to me that the Government are not seized of all the information that could well be expected to rest and lodge in them in connection with so important a transaction as this. I have shown very clearly that there is nothing unreasonable in our asking the Government for a further inquiry in connection with this matter; but we are twitted with the remark: Oh, you have been finding fault with the multiplicity of commissions in the past. So we have, and the hon. gentleman who leads the Government added to his many striking phrases when he coined the expression that commissions were as numerous as blackberries and that they were of no service whatever except, that when they reported, their reports were put into dusty pigeonholes and that was the end of them. That is practically what the leader of the Government has said about those commissions. This Government issued possibly hundreds of commissions that were abso-

lutely useless and that had no purpose except that of giving a job to a heeler who was everlastingly bothering them about some job when they had none to give him; they could not give him a position as there was none vacant, and so they said: Oh, well, we will appoint you a commissioner and that will keep you agoing for a while, and when you get through with that, perhaps you will be satisfied or there will be something else. And if he was old, they hoped that he would probably die before he reported in regard to the commission. We had hundreds of commissions under such contingencies; but because there were such commissions and such contingencies, was that a reason why a commission should not be appointed when one was reasonable and proper? This is an occasion when there was every reason to expect that the Government would appoint a commission to look into this matter before they would take over this great railway system which is sixty or sixty-five years old and which has gone through many changes, ramifications and vicissitudes during that time, especially as we have no knowledge of its condition except that we have as to its financial condition the fact that the manager Sir Alfred Smithers came to the Prime Minister of this country asking for help, to endorse his note, so to speak, some time in 1918, to get a little money to keep the wolf from the door for a few years longer. In the last report on the operations and earnings of the road that we have he said that the most heart-rending cries were coming from people all over England who had put their money in this enterprise because he had nothing to give them in the way of dividends; they were everlastingly op-portuning him to give them some return on the capital they had invested in the road. There we have evidence that the road is not in a healthy condition, that it is not paying its way. We have the further evidence that $51,000,000 is required to put the road in proper running condition. We have that statement in the Drayton-Acworth report. When this country was organized and became a Dominion in 1867, the total revenue of the country for the first years of its existence was only $38,000,000. If we were back in those days it would take every dollar of the revenue of Canada to put this road in proper running condition, and we would still be short $13,000,000 of doing it. We are accustomed to talking of millions and billions to-day. We should try to realize what this expenditure would have meant in more normal times, what it would have meant to us, for instance, in 
the first few years of Canada's existence as a Dominion when our revenues were only about $38,000,000. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), a far better authority than I, informs me that our revenues were only $13,000,000 in the very morning of our existence as a Dominion, but to-day the Government think nothing of spending $51,000,000 of cold cash to put the road in proper running condition. We are taking over a road that has not been able to pay any dividends on its stock for the last two years at least, and which has paid dividends irregularly throughout practically its whole life. It is a non-paying proposition. Nobody who had sufficient money to purchase this road today would put his money into the Grand Trunk as a private investment. I would ask my wealthy friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) if he would think it an inviting proposition to put a few of his millions in the Grand Trunk in order to make money. He would say at once: I will appoint a man at your expense, Sir Alfred, to go over the whole road and make a report on every phase of it, to examine every car and every spike on your road before I will put one dollar of my hard-earned cash into this venture.
But when it is the money of the people of Canada it is a different matter. None ol us seem to have a proper comprehension of the thing at all. As long as the money belongs to the whole of Canada, and we should remember we are a very important part of the whole of Canada, we are quite willing to let it go. I repeat there is not a single member of this House, or a properly constituted business man in Canada or anywhere else in the world who would take over this vast undertaking in the haphazard and loose way in which it is proposed we should take it over. We know nothing at all about it. What do we know about the road-bed, the rolling stock, or the equipment generally? Nothing at all, except what is contained in one short letter from some high official of the road who is trying to advance these negotiations as rapidly as possible, who says the road is in good condition. That is all we have. I appeal again to my wealthy friend from Brantford, would he accept evidence of that kind if he was going to buy the Grand Trunk? Certainly not. He would have a thorough investigation made and a business report upon every phase of the property before he would think of taking it over.
It is for these reasons we have moved this resolution. We are asking the members of

this House and the people of this country to consider whether we are not justified in saying that we should go slow in this matter and know what we are buying. We are not obliged to buy this property. There is no foundation for the statement that we are up against it and have to buy this property. Nothing of the kind. If we have properties on our hands that are not paying, whoever would expect to make a fortune by adding to them another property that is not paying its way? To go back to the old illustration of which so much fun was made, if a man has ten cows and cannot make them pay, and gets another two of exactly the same kind and quality, what great chance has he of making twelve pay when he couldn't make the ten pay?


Robert Lorne Richardson: It all depends on the sex of the two.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I made it perfectly clear that they were two cows. Perhaps my hon. friend knows so little about farming he does not know what a cow means.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I was brought up
on the farm and went for the cows when I was a child.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In view of the present state of the political atmosphere I would advise my hon. friend to learn a little more about farming. I was saying that the roads we now have are not paying. The Intercolonial is not paying, the Grand Trunk Pacific is not paying, the Canadian Northern is not paying. According to figures given me by the Department of Railways and Canals we will have a deficit of at least $49,000,000 or $50,000,000 this year on the Government railways. These are official figures without the slightest monstrosity about them. I was accused the other day of having mathematical notions that were monstrous, but these figures come from the orthodox source I have mentioned. We are going to have a deficit of $50,000,000 on our railways this year, and now when it is proposed to add another railway to the system, we are told we are wasting our breath when ve ask hon. gentlemen who are responsible to the Canadian people for the expenditure of the people's money to inquire into this transaction more fully before we go any further into it.
We are not obliged to buy it, but if it is necessary, in order to make a success of the Grand Trunk Pacific or of the Canadian Northern, that we should own this road, we can immediately get the benefit of it by compelling the company to give us running
rights over the road on proper terms. They owe us something like $200,000,000 and we can give them an opportunity to pay us back some or the whole of that amount by giving us the use of their rails and terminals on rental. We have two lines running across the continent now.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: Can the hon. member give the House an illustration of any similarly situated railway system that is operated successfully by the forcing of running rights of one road over another?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I said running rights on reasonable terms; whether they are forced or not is not very material. One railway might not be willing to give another reasonable rights, but the Government are in a position to submit to any company rights within reason and if they do not accept them- then they can be enforced. Perhaps the experiment has not been tried, but I am told that in the United States there is not a single complete system of railway from one coast to the other, and therefore there must be a great many arrangements by which one company secures running rights over the rails of another. We had such an arrangement in this country, for the Canadian Pacific Railway enjoyed running rights over large sections of the Intercolonial for many years. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details of the matter to-day to know whether they have those rights now or not, but I know that they had them for many years, and the arrangement was an altogether voluntary one on the part of the Government.


Arthur Meighen: Who is asking for running rights? We have sufficient roads to carry more traffic than we have. What we want is traffic.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If we could make money by acquiring the road we could make an arrangement by which we could use the road and give the Grand Trunk an opportunity of paying back their debts by way of rentals. If they are on the verge of receivership now we could say to them : " Don't pay cash. We will give you an opportunity of paying what you owe us by renting to us your terminals and giving us certain running rights which are essential to the success of our road." But, Mr. Speaker, I do not admit that such rights are essential. We have two lines from coast to coast now. We have the Intercolonial running down to the Atlantic, and if we cannot come near enough to making one hand wash the other, so to speak.

under 'these conditions and with the very heavy mileage we now have, I do not for a moment admit that we are going to remove all the difficulties that confront us and make a success of government-operated railways by acquiring the Grand Trunk.


Arthur Meighen: Is it the hon. member's plan to help the Grand Trunk to pay its responsibilities to the Grand Trunk Pacific by taking their business from them?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not saying a word about the Grand Trunk Pacific. I presume we are going to take the Grand Trunk Pacific, and, as a matter of fact, we have it now. il simply say that if it is in-dispensible to the success of the Grand Trunk Pacific to connect with lines of the Grand Trunk proper, we could very reasonably expect that arrangements might be made by which its traffic could be carried through to the Intercolonial and thence to the Atlantic coast.


Arthur Meighen: We can carry it now.
But if the hon. gentleman is going to take the Grand Trunk's traffic how is the Grand Trunk to live?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am contending now that we can carry our traffic, and it is nothing hut camouflage to say that more roads are necessary. We have plenty of rails and terminals and plenty of cars to carry all the freight we have, and it is merely passing the buck to say that we are taking over this railway in order to be able to handle the traffic adequately.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member does not understand that it is traffic we want. We do not say that we cannot carry the traffic we have. We can carry three times our present traffic, and it is more traffic that we want. The hon. gentleman proposes that we should get it from the Grand Trunk, but how is the Grand Trunk to pay us what it owes1 us, according to the hon. member's suggestion, if it cannot live?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It will not better our condition to take the Grand Trunk and its traffic, for it is not getting enough traffic now to pay. It is not and never was suggested by the Grand Trunk that we were going to get traffic from them. They cannot pay themselves, and in view of that fact how much better off are we going to be by taking their road and its traffic.


Arthur Meighen: We shall be getting the through traffic which we have not got now.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think it can be contended that we have better

facilities for management than this com-; pany of sixty or sixty-five years of age, who surely have learnt the art of running railways if it ever can be learnt. We have no one whom we can put in charge of the rotad who can manage it better than they have done, and with all their traffic in the . United States and elsewhere the whole thing is a huge failure. It is not making money, and any dividends it has been paying have been taken, according to the Drayton-Aeworth report, out of the very life blood of the road. The sum of $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 has been diverted from legitimate expenditure on the road and spread among the shareholders, but the road has not been paying. That is the condition of things which I protest against on behalf of the people and which I submit is sufficient ground for a proper inquiry. We should be in a position to know whether this proposition is a paying one or not, and if it is not a paying proposition, we do not want it, because we do not need it. On the other hand, if it is a paying proposition, a few months' delay until we have secured this desired information will not make much difference. I presume that I am very much in the same position as the Minister of the Interior himself. He admits that he has given us nothing new on the subject. It is difficult, indeed, to get anything new, for we have gone over these points repeatedly. But the proposition is different from our standpoint. We are defending the rights of the people. To the best of our ability we are defending the purses and pockets of the ratepayers of the country, and it is our solemn duty again and again to force upon the attention of the Government, as strongly as we possibly can, our objections to this proposition as it stands. Hon. gentlemen opposite make fun of me because I quote Holy Writ. Well, I am glad that my good friend from Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) comes to my aid occasionally, very fittingly and properly quoting from the same source. Those who profess to be in opposition here are the watchmen on the walls; and the watchman, Sir, is told "Woe unto him if he does not cry out."


George Green Foster: And they do cry out.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, we, cry out in warning to the people; and particularly, Sir, we cry out in warning to the representatives of those people in this House. We warn the Government againstt this pernicious transaction, and if they do not heed

that warning, then the sword will descend and cut them down, and their blood will be upon their own heads. We need not tell them of their sins and iniquities. Indeed, if we did, they might s'ay, " We may die in our sins but our blood will be on your heads." Hon. gentlemen on this side take good care that if the Government do meet political death, devastation and utter destruction, it will not be because we did not warn them against the errors of their ways and ask them definitely and repeatedly and in an earnest voice to avoid the pitfall into which they are now dragging this country along with them.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I should not like to undertake to make a speech on the merits of this case, as presented by the Government, .after having listened to the eloquent, forceful and convincing address of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen). I think he has covered the ground very fully and I shall therefore take but a few minutes in dealing with one or two points which I think have not been touched upon. I was surprised to hear the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), in his outburst before he concluded, refer to the Opposition as defending the rights of the people in this connection. I could not fail to be convinced that he had used the wrong verb.
As a matter of fact, whatever he thinks, or whatever those who are associated with him think, instead of defending the rights of the people both he and they are betraying the rights of the people up to the hilt.


Arthur Meighen: Except some people.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Except a few people whose names might suggest themselves to us and whom we find it unnecessary to enumerate. He had the amusing assurance to speak of himself as the faithful watchman up on the 'tower switching on the danger signal to warn the public. When he used that metaphor I could not help but think of the words I once heard from the lips of William Jennings Bryan, who was then a candidate for the presidency of the United States. He said: "Woe be to the watchman on the tower if he fails to give the proper signal in the hour of danger when his fellowmen are perishing." A public man to whom his fellows look for leadership and direction is equally guilty if he fails to give honest direction. No greater curse can fall than that which fate reserves for the faithless watchman up on the tower who lures
the shipwrecked mariners to their doom, or the public man who leads the people astray.
This country is in an exceedingly dangerous position at the present time. It is critical almost beyond exaggeration. Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us, one after another, that they believe in public ownership. They will argue in favour of public ownership and make out an excellent case, but when it comes to the point they say: " This is not public ownership, and they do their best to find partisan excuses for voting against it. The leader of 'the Opposition points out as one of the reasons why this is not public ownership is that we propose that when the Grand Trunk is taken over taxes shall be paid to 'the municipalities as has been dime by the Grand Trunk in the past. Let me institute a comparison. Take the Government and the city of Ottawa. The Government owns and controls enormous real property interests in the city of Ottawa. It is true it does not pay taxes directly to the city of Otawa, but in lieu of taxes it pays to the city something like $375,000 a year, carries on the important work of beautifying parks, boulevards, etc., and makes other expenditures out of the funds of Canada.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Where does 'the hon. gentleman get the authority for that statement?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I think it was published in the press very recently. It is done by agreement with the city of Ottawa.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not in lieu of. taxes.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Would the hon. gentleman suggest what, in his view, the large annual payment is in lieu of?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In lieu of nothing but for the beautification of the city.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Does 'the hon. gentleman really suggest that the Government contributes $375,000 a year to the city of Ottawa for the privilege, if it be a privilege, of keeping the Capi'tol here?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not for that purpose. This is the capital city of Canada and this commission is appointed for the purpose of beautifying the capital city and we are contributing to it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: As a matter of fact the hon. gentleman-I do not want to use the word offensively-is squirming.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, I am not squirming.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am not seeking to be offensive but I used that term because I could not think of any other. There can be no doubt that it is in lieu of the exemption from taxation that the Government contributes this enormous amount of money to the municipality of Ottawa. I cannot conceive of any other reason why it should be contributed. The municipal authorities of Ottawa themselves give that as the reason why this contribution should be made to them. It is not really disputed and we might pass on from that consideration. Suppose that we should adopt the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, this great project of amalgamating the Grand Trunk with our publicly owned system would be thrown into the air. We would never reach a satisfactory conclusion. If you appoint a commission to go into the question you might wait for years before you receive their finding, so great and complex is this problem. This is a very intricate and broad subject. It is absolutely essential in my judgment that there should be as little delay as possible.
Talk of jamming the thing through Parliament, to use the expression of the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) it has been before Parliament and the country for over .two years. The Dray-ton-Acworth report, made nearly three years ago by the best experts the Government could secure, recommended this very thing. Surely hon. members sitting opposite must realize that in connection with the railway question the country has been on a great debauch, for twenty-five, thirty or forty years and we have got into this frightful mess. I am not blaming one party more than another; the country itself it to blame for tolerating the blundering, incompetent, or worse, mis-called statesmen or politicians who got us into this mess. Being in that hopeless position, we called in the doctor. If my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has a sick child, he calls in the doctor, and the doctor diagnoses the case, and prescribes the desirable medicine, and if he be a wise father he will follow the doctor's orders. In this railway extremity we called the best doctors we could, there was no politics about it, and the doctors, in the persons of the commissioners who prepared the Drayton-Acworth report, said that the remedy which the Government's proposals embrace, should be applied. Surely three years is a sufficient lapse of time to enable the country and its representatives to consider the question. They have pon-
dered over the question and this decision may be assumed to be the considered judgment of the country. It is true that in the province of Quebec and in the city of Montreal-doubtless in the city of Montreal there is a strong current of public opinion against it. But let me remind hon. gentlemen opposite that the press, financial and otherwise, which seems to be very largely under the influence of the big interests, are pretty generally opposed to this project and the people have had no opportunity of studying or of even learning the facts. I am satisfied that if the Minister of the Interior were to go to Montreal, talk to a thousand of the best and wisest business men of that city, and make the speech that he has made here this afternoon, the men of substance of Montreal would, if not unanimously, at least overwhelmingly, support this Bill. I myself, with my limited ability, would not be afraid of exacting a favourable verdict did I but have the opportunity of pressing the case to the men of Montreal.
What the Government proposes is the only thing to do. We are losing, as the Minister of the Interior pointed out, $25.000,000 a year in the upkeep and operation of these railways that have against our will been dumped into our laps. You could not give the Grand Trunk Pacific away if you tried; the Canadian Pacific railway say they don't want it; nobody wants it, but you cannot afford not to operate it, because if you did not operate it you would have a rebellion in the country that it serves. Large business centres and populations throughout the country have been created by virtue of the construction of this railway. Hon. gentlemen opposite must know that they, or their party, are responsible for this huge, this colossal, this bewildering blunder. This road has been thrown into the lap of the country. It must be operated and so must the Transcontinental. But in connection with that operation we are losing approximately $25,000,000 a year. If we have the Grand Trunk, which was destined to work in connection with these two other railways, I am satisfied that (by practising economies, cutting out superfluous trains, cutting down the number of offices, cutting out officials and making savings in connection with the operation of express and telegraph companies-(because instead of having two telegraph companies as we now have, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Great North Western, we shall have only one and in a hundred other ways enormous economies can be effected, and instead of losing $25,-

000,000 a year, we may be able to break even in a short time. That is what experts tell us. This is the only thing to do. If we want to ruin the country we can go1 on pouring out these tens of millions to the corporations, but by doing so we may strangle for all time the great ideal of public ownership. I thought the leader of the Opposition would not have referred again to the most unhappy and inept illustration he gave to the House the other day about the cow.
He now talks of the country owning ten cows instead of one and he suggests that it would be a mistake to add two more. It makes no difference whether we have ten cows or one cow; at least we have got the cow which was left in our yard, and we are obliged to support that cow. But it is a dry cow, it is producing nothing, not even a pint of milk a year and in addition its upkeep is costing us millions every year. But if we add another animal we can ' probably start the two, or at least start one of them in the direction of producing something, and that is the only way in which we can make a success of public ownership. I see what is in the minds-I shall not say in the mind of the leader of the Opposition nor shall I say in the mind of the former leader of the Opposition-but certainly of some hon. gentlemen opposite. I take it that the two leaders have managed to persuade themselves or are convinced that they are on the right track, but I want to tell all hon. gentlemen in this House who call themselves Liberals, that in supporting such a policy as they are supporting they are endeavouring to destroy for all time, so far as Canada is concerned, the idea of the success of public ownership. We can make a success of public ownership under right conditions; but until Gabriel blows his trumpet we couli not make a success of such public ownership of railways as we have at the present time. The conditions are impossible. And that is what the interests who are behind some people on the Opposition side, a fact perhaps of which they are unconscious, are afraid of. They do not want the Grand Trunk railway to be acquired because with that accomplished public ownership will have a chance for success-it has no chance whatever for success -at the present time. To me, as a man who always believed in Liberal ideas, it is distressing and painful to find my old friends opposing the idea of public ownership and betraying the very cause they profess to have at heart. We can make a success of public ownership because, as I pointed out the other night, it has been
1014 .
made a success in many countries. I omitted to mention then that in all the Australasian colonies the railroads belong to and are operated by the governments. Let me point out to the leader of the Opposition that there, instead of railroads being built to oblige exploiters and railroad buccaneers, they are built where the settlers require them-they are built for the purpose of extending settlement and the development of the country, one of the great and primary ideas of public ownership; the railroads there are a success and the railroad rates are low. I have not got the schedules of rates of those railways with me although I saw them some time ago, but my recollection is that the rates are very moderate, and we can attain that success in Canada at the present time if we have the opportunity. One thing, however, will	have	to be	done. When	thisrailway system is co-ordinated, we will	have	to	lop	off all the	unnecessary mileage and then we will be able to extend moderate rates and give the people of this country Teal service. I can understand why the interests should be opposed to this measure, because when the people of Canada realize that, they have an efficient public-owned railway system and telegraph system of their own it will percolate through the cranium of the average man that he had better patronize his own- system. That is really the explanation of the opposition to this measure. When the Canadian people become proud of their public-owned system they will patronize it, and then we shall have some kind of decent competition in this country. With a great public-owned system of over 20,000 miles of road, reaching every important point in the country, Canada can make a success of her public-owned system. The people themselves will patronize that system and for all time will control rates and dictate the railway policy of this country. Should we allow this system and all the railway mileage of this country to pass into the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, we are bound body and soul to that corporation for the rest of our natural lives. That is why the members on this side, that is why the people of Ontario in great unanimity and the people of the West almost in entire unanimity, are in favour of public ownership. We had railway corporation dictation in the northwestern country for years and years, and the time came when the people practically rebelled against it. I remember myself going out with a revolver in my pocket, as one of a large band
of special police appointed by the city of Winnipeg, to force a crossing where the 'Canadian Pacific company had attempted to bar the entrance of a railroad to relieve The people. We in the West know something about what railway corporation dictation means, and we are determined that that sort of thing shall never happen again. We cannot lose money by consummating this deal-the worst that possibly could happen is that we should save millions every year. And we have not got to pay out any money. Some members and newspapers' who are supporting the Opposition talk about the appalling amount of money we must pay out on this, transaction and they use that argument for the purpose of stirring up opposition and prejudicing public interests with our returned soldiers. We have not got to pay out money at all. It is true that we assume the bond and debenture indebtedness of the Grand drunk railway,	but	the earnings	of	that	system wil pay the interest. Therefore, we are	not	called upon	to	pay	out
this large sum of money, the railway itself will provide the revenue. I repeat, when the railway is amalgamated with the mileage we have at the present time, I have no doubt, and the experts who have studied this question have little doubt that we can make a financial success, of the system instead of going on, as we are doing, losing $25,000,000 a year. If the Opposition could propose any reasonable or acceptable alternative, I for one would be perfectly satisfied as the country has not sought this proposal, but they propose no alternative. They come forward at ihe last moment with the futile suggestion that we refer the whole thing to a commission. Just reflect, Mr. Speaker, where that proposal if accepted would place us: We would be wallowing in the slough of despond and despair before we would receive the report. The time to act is now. Every hour that we continue the operation of the system that we have got-which we had no desire to take over but which was forced upon us-we are losing thousands of dollars. I marvel that hon. gentlemen opposite have not studied this question for themselves. If there was any question about the right thing to do, one could understand their position; but there is no alternative. The proposition has no feasible or even possible alternative. The Government must take the exact course it has set out to take, and by following that course I believe the public-owned system will he made a success.

One word further before I sit down. I find great difficulty in understanding the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. In the old days he was a valiant fighter in the Liberal ranks and he is the man more than any other-although the Old Chieftain must be saddled with his fair share of the responsibility-he is the man that is responsible for driving the Grand Trunk Pacific arrangement through Parliament. The so-called Liberal Government appealed to the country on it and used such arguments as helped to secure a majority in their favour. I myself ran against the western minister in the Laurier Cabinet in opposition to the perpetration of this scheme, because I realized then, although much younger than I am now, that it was a tremendous blunder, and hon. gentlemen opposite know it was a blunder, the whole country now admits that it was a blunder, but it was largely through the specious arguments of my hon. friend, who was then the Minister of Finance, that the country accepted the proposal. Do we find him offering any alternative worth considering to what the Government proposes? No alternative whatever. He is the last man in Canada that should get up and oppose the Government's solution of the existing difficulties in regard, to the railway situation. Ido not-think the country is necessarily clamoring for public ownership of railways with its present- handicap. To help ourselves out of our present unfortunate position we must take over the Grand Trunk system. To find the hon. member (Mr. Fielding) an old stalwart in the so-called Liberal ranks, taking such an attitude makes me wonder sometimes whether he is mentally sound. The idea of the hon. member, an old newpaper man too, t^-in-g the Montreal Star, forsooth, as a mouthpiece of this progressive Union Government. As if an organ of the interests of so pronounced a type could have any influence with any party. Why you could not blast the average Montreal paper asunder from the interests. Think of papers like the Financial Times in Montreal pouring out its wrath and its criticism upon a man whom I regard as the greatest apostle of public ownership in this country, or anywhere else,-the man, living or dead, who in my judgment has done more during the last-quarter of a century for -the interests of Canada than any other man in the Dominion-I refer to Sir Adam Beck! The Financial Times-, last year, heaped abuse and vituperation wholesale upon

this great public servant, this man who has rendered such sublime public service to his country. The Financial Times denounced him because of his work on behalf of the people. That is your Montreal press for you. Why, Lord Atholstan, the proprietor pf the Montreal Star, went West a year or two ago to " study the railway question." How does the leader of the Opposition suppose he studied the railway question-reclining upon a luxuriously upholstered leather sofa in the observation end of Lord Shaughnessy's private car. These are the men who are quoted to us in connection with railway matters. I marvel that thi*' sort of thing continues. I marvel that this House has been kept as it has been kept for the last two or three weeks to debate a proposal which is so clearly and demonstrably sound; a proposal which is so manifestly in the interests of the public. I con* gratulate the Government upon the patience exhibited in explaining and re-explaining, and reiterating its explanations, although the opposition was so futile and puerile and the power behind the throne was so thoroughly suspected and understood. In saying that I do not wish to be offensive to hon. gentlemen'opposite, because many of them believe in the position they have taken.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If Sir Adam 'Beck is
such a wonderful man, why did the good people of London turn him down?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am glad that the hon. gentleman asked that question, because it suggests to my mind a sort of satisfaction in the hon. gentleman's mind because Sir Adam Beck was turned down.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am asking the question, that is all; it is no satisfaction to me.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the hon. gentleman was a sincere friend of this country, if he loved his country and desired to see it progress and prosper, he would hang his head in shame rather than ask such a suggestive question. I say that it is a reflection on the judgment of any constituency that turned down Sir Adam Beck. But mark my words, Mr. Speaker, the time will come and' in Sir Adam Beck's case come swiftly when the pendulum will swing the other \vay and Sir Adam Beck will occupy possibly the highest position in the land. He now occupies despite his temporary set back by a spiteful constituency, a position in the affections and esteem of the people of this country that any citizen of the land mi^ht well envy. Perhaps, after all, I might appeal to my hon. friend the leader of the
Opposition who loves scriptural allusions. It may be, nay it probably is, that the hand of Providence was behind Sir Adam's reverse and merely brought it about that	he might the more effective'y
exalt so great and so since'-e a	public servant. It	sometimes
happens that when a man's great qualities, a man's real usefulness to the country, is emphasized, he has to first suffer attack and defeat but the very blow that is dealt often sends him to the topmost rung of the ladder of fame. That is where Sir Adam Beck is likely to go; and if he does not, there is something that is worth far more than worldy success-it is to deserve and not to receive it. It is a princely thing, as Marcus Aurelius said, to serve the State even though one may not receive the plaudits of the multitude. Possibly that may happen in the case of Sir Adam Beck.
Mr. "VIEN: The hon. member has said that by taking over the Grand Trunk we will make money in the operation of the Canadian National railways. Will he reconcile that assertion with the fact, acknowledged by the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) that for a number of years to come-a number which it is impossible at the (moment to determine-the country will be faced with successive deficits in the management of the Canadian National railways? And how does the hon. member reconcile his opinion as to the profits to be derived from the operation of the Canadian National railways with the experience of United States in connection with their management of their own roads?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I will answer the last question first. So far as the American railroads are concerned, I think it may be accepted that government ownership during the war did not prove successful; they lost money on the railroads. But much of the loss was based on the enormous overcapitalization of these American roads, the doubling .of the co'st of operation and much oif it was due to the fact that the movement of the troops and the carrying on of the war were' the paramount objects which the American Government had in view in taking over these railroads. The giving of service to the people and the earning of dividends was altogether subordinated to the winning of the war, and that is why the state operation of the roads was not financially successful. But let me point out to my hon. friend this: I saw it recently in a white book issued in

England that the British Government realized a surplus of $81,000,000 in the operation of their roads under government ownership during the war.
As to my hon. friend's first question, I will tell him how the operation of these roads can be made successful. He will admit that the greatest folly was perpetrated in the construction of our railroads. Has he ever gone through the Yellowhead Pass? Does he know that there he can stand on the platform of a car on one line of railway and throw a stone a few yards and hit a train running on the track nearby of another line of railway? For hundreds of miles through that district the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific run parallel. Now, one of these lines is entirely unnecessary.


Thomas Vien: How will the taking over of the Grand Trunk remedy that?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I will show the hon. member, if he will let me go on; I want to make this explanation. When you take over these roads you have to eliminate hundreds of miles of lines which parallel each other; you have to co-ordinate the system so that we shall not have deficits. If we are going to give public ownership a chance for its life, the Government or Parliament must co-ordinate the systems acquired and retain only what would have been necessary had the lines been built under proper conditions. Put a fair capitalization on what constitutes a real system; wipe all the rest from the ledger. Then, when you have cut the capitalization down to a reasonable and just and proper basis, you will only have to charge freight rates which are sufficient to pay operating expenses and upkeep, and the interest on a reasonable capital. I do not know any other way of making a success of it.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member condemns the railway policy of the member for Shelburne and Queen's. Is it not a fact that in 1912 the hon. member was a candidate at a by-election in Macdonald and then supported the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the member for Shelburne and Queen's?


Robert Lorne Richardson: No, my dearly beloved brother


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Well, my dearly beloved Mr. Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member must address the Chair.


Robert Lorne Richardson: All right; the hon. gentleman (Mr. Robb) put a straight ques-
[llr. Richardson.]
tion to me, and without thinking for the moment, I was going to reply to him in a like manner. The fact of the matter is that in 1912 I was a candidate in the by-election in Macdonald. But the question of public ownership or the Government's railway . policy in that question was not considered; that question had no more to do with the election than had the reconstruction of the sphinx of Egypt. Does the hon. gentleman not know that I ran against Clifford Sifton, I.aurier's Western minister on this very issue a few years before and then denounced the project from every angle? I will tell you what was the issue in the Macdonald by-election-the issue was reciprocity. The Laurier Government had been defeated on the great question of reciprocity.
I, although having differed with my leader before that, supported that policy, and through the newspaper which I control supported every candidate that was running on that policy. When the Macdonald seat was subsequently opened, I ran on the question of reciprocity as a supporter. I have always believed in it, and I believe in it sltill, as I am certain all the people of Canada very generally Jrelieve in it at the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Thomas Vien: Hon. gentlemen should have a little patience. 1 wish to ask another question of my hon. friend (Mr. Richardson). Does the hon. gentleman admit that his sanguine view as to our future profits are at variance with the opinion of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), who stated in this House that by the taking over of the Grand Trunk we would be saddled with an extra expenditure of $20,000,000 a year?


Robert Lorne Richardson: I did not hear the figures given by the ex-Minister of Finance or the hon. member for Brantford, but it is very likely- that they did not misstate the position. They probably had in view the payment of interest on an enormous capital, an unnecessary capital and a capital which, as I pointed out a moment ago, must be wiped out if we are to make a success of public operation. But here is the point and I conclude with it, and the hon. gentleman must agree with me. Our loss, if we go on as we are, will be tens of millions; if we take over the Grand Trunk and co-ordinate it with our system, we shall be able to cut that loss down to a vanishing point, and it is my judgment and it is backed by experts that ultimately we shall

be able to make a sucess of the whole system.


Thomas Vien: I should like to put another question to the hon. member. Is it in his opinion


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. member is hardly proceeding in the proper form. He may submit a question to an hon. member who is on his feelt, but the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) has concluded his address.	.


Thomas Vien: I might remind you, Sir, that whilst the hon. member was on his feet I asked him the privilege of putting a question to him, and he asked me to let him conclude his remarks and said that I would then be welcome to put any question to him.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I quite understand the position is as stated by the hon. member. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Springfield and any other hon. member must abide by the rules of the House. The fact is that the hon. member for Springfield has concluded his speech.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely abide by your ruling.



DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL


Hon. J. A. OALDER:: I wish to lay on the Table at this stage, as 1 think it would expedite the business of the House, the report of the Special Committee to which was referred Bill No. 10, to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The report can only be tabled at this stage with the unanimous consent of the House. In view of its importance and the present stage of the session I think the minister may properly ask for consent.
Report tabled.


James Alexander Calder: I wish also to give notice that on Monday next I shall move:
That the Report of the Special Committee appointed on the eighteenth day of September last, to which was referred Bill No. 10, An Act to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Act, and the Orders in Council relating to the work of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, which were laid on the table of the House on the sixteenth day of. September for the consideration thereof, and of all matters pertaining thereto, which was presented to the House on the thirty-first day of October last, be received, and that the expenditure recommended therein, or which be required for carrying out the recommendations therein, be commended to the consideration of the Government.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When will the report be printed and ready for distribution? It is absolutely impossible for members to discuss the report until they have had an opportunity of reading it.


James Alexander Calder: We have the report now ready in galley form. We were not able to get it in regular printed form for presentation this afternoon, but it is being printed now and possibly will be ready for distribution before the House adjourns to-night.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILL.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 37 for the relief of Frank Thimm. -Mr. Nesbitt.


[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. J. D. Reid for the third reading of Bill No. 33, respecting the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway system, and the motion of Mr. Fielding in amendment thereto.
Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of .representing in this House the constituency of 'Lotbiniere,, the population of which is 90 per cent French Canadian; therefore, I am most happy, in the course of this third session of my parliamentary career, to address the House in my mother tongue, in that beautiful language which resounds on the shores of the St. Lawrence, a language which we keep as the apple of our eyes, and which, to use an expression you have heard within these precincts "partakes of the limpidity of a stream and the resonance of metal."
In rising to discuss the question which is now focussing the attention,, of the House, I do not stand here as a politician or a partisan; I stand here as a representative of the people; and did I wish to put on airs as my hon. friend from Annapolis, I might perhaps say that in addressing the House, I do so as a statesman. As a matter of fact, being once called upon to give [DOT]evidence before a court of justice in Nova Scotia, and being asked, when about to be sworn in, what his functions were, whether

lie was a politician,, he made reply: "No, sir, I am a statesman."
Mr. .Speaker, I harbour in my soul no such pretension, but I may say that in intervening to-day in this debate, I do so in my capacity as a representative of the people, a friend of the people, a citizen of Canada. It is from the viewpoint of the best interests of my country that I shall consider the question which has now been discussed for over three weeks.
I have abstained from participating in this discussion, when the resolution was brought down; I did abstain from any commentary on the principle of the Bill, and during the debate which took place in committee, with all the broadmindedness at my command and free from any political bias, 1 endeavoured to obtain from the Government such information and light as was required, that we might judge the question on its merits and proceed in giving our vote upon a thorough knowledge of the matter.
Mr. Speaker, the country to-day is seething with unrest and discontent. Heaven forbid that I should hold this .Government wholly responsible. Necessarily that unrest is an aftermath of the war; it is, to a large degree, a corollary of that evolution in the field of human thought which is taking place in a world emerging from an epochal conflict. But if that unrest was partly inherent in the conditions which have prevailed these last three or four years,, it has none the less been intensified to a great degree by lack of foresight on the part of the Government in many a field of governmental activity. 'Do not we hear rising from every .quarter, sharp criticisms directed against the Government who failed to bring to bear upon the administration of public affairs that breadth of conception, that freedom from narrowness, that far vision of the statesmen who presided over the destinies of France? From 1911-because the present Administration is after all but a continuation of that of 1911, somewhat modified-the Government has blundered egregiously in railway matters.
In 1903, Parliament had passed an Act sanctioning a contract entered into between the Grand Trunk Company and the Canadian Government. Under this contract the 'Canadian Government undertook to build a National Transcontinental, from Moncton, in New Brunswick, to the City of Winnipeg, in Manitoba. On the other hand, the Grand Trunk Company undertook to build under the name of Grand Trunk Pacific, the other sections of that

system, from Winnipeg to the British Columbia coast. On the completion of that system, it was agreed that the Government would hand over to the Grand Trunk Railway Company that portion of the system known as the Transcontinental by way oi lease, for a period of fifty years, so that the Canadian Government might be relieved of any responsibility, 'during that period, in connection with the management of the Transcontinental.
What happened then? Down to 1911, it was all plain sailing; the Canadian Government built that portion of the system which runs from Moncton to Winnipeg, and the Grand Trunk Company built the sections from Winnipeg to the British Columbia coast. But in 1911, a political revolution occurred in the country, and seizing the reins of power, the present Administration assumed the obligation of going forward with the construction of the Transcontinental. What did they do? Instead of adhering to the terms of the agreement of 1903, they degraded the line, altered the grades, the various inclines of the road; they did not proceed in building the line according to the specifications approved by the Grand Trunk Company; they changed, without the assent of the company, the terminals at Quebec and Winnipeg, and many other important details, in utter disregard of the agreement.
No wonder then that, in 1914, on the completion Of the Transcontinental, when the Government presented it to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and told them: "Gentlemen, this is the railway we have built, this is our National Transcontinental; take it under lease, agreeably to your contract of 1903," no wonder, I say, that the Grand Trunk Company answered:	"You '
cannot force us to carry out the terms of our contract unless you carried them out yourselves; you have altered the specifications, you did not build the road as it should have been built; therefore we consider ourselves relieved of our obligation."'
What did the Government then do? Did they protest? Did they force the Grand Trunk Company to accept the Transcontinental? Did the Government claim that they had carried out their obligations?
No, the Government confessed judgment; they admitted that they had not discharged the obligations binding on them .under their agreement of 1903, and they told the company "You refuse to take over the Transcontinental; we cannot force you to take it over." The Drayton-Acworth report admits that the Government has relieved

the company of any obligation with respect to the Transcontinental.
What happenned then? The Grand Trunk company came forward and told the Government: "Gentlemen, we have built the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. Never would we have agreed to construct that line had we not had a connecting link between our Western system and the Eastern system. Our Grand Trunk has its terminus at Sarnia, and our Grand Trunk Pacific has its terminus at Winnipeg. Without the linking up of those systems, how could we carry our traffic from Sarnia to Winnipeg?
Under our contract, the National Transcontinental should be the connecting link between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk system. Now, as things stand, we cannot possibly make a success in operating the Grand Trunk Pacific. It will not be a paying enterprise, for this reason that it is an isolated system, without any outlet to the West, and such outlets we should undoubtedly have had, had you carried out the agreement of 1903."
Again, the Government of Canada confessed judgment; they realized that the Grand Trunk Pacific could not be a paying enterprise, deprived as it was of the services of the Transcontinental. What occurred under those circumstances? The Grand Trunk Company, in 1913, applied to the Government for a loan of $15,000,000 to operate its subsidiary company, the Grand Trunk Pacific. They came back before Parliament in 1916, for another loan of $7,081,703; and in 1917	$5,038,053 was
authorized and advanced, and in the spring of 1918 a further loan of $7,471,399 was authorized by Parliament. Every year the Government onoe more confessed judgment that the Grand Trunk Pacific was entitled to Government aid, for the reason that the Government had not respected their agreement of 1903.
Mr. Speaker, in going into those facts, I want to show you that if we are confronted to-day with such an involved situation so far as our railways are concerned, and if we find ourselves face to face with an almost inextricable tangle, the blame falls on those reckless administrators who have shown themselves unable to respect their undertakings entered into with a private company and who, by the very fact, were making it impossible for them to bind the other contracting party to the discharge of its obligations.
To-day. the Government is without a
ghost of a chance to c-ompel the Grand Trunk Company to live up to its obligations. I do not agree with the Minister of the Interior and I am satisfied that were that question referred to a tribunal the Grand Trunk Company would be relieved of its undertakings as regards the Grand Trunk Pacific, the other contracting party having failed to meet its obligations resting on it, under the agreement. Therefore if we are brought face to face with such an appalling situation, the blame is to be laid on the men who now sit in the seats of office.
In 1918, a new situation arose which eventuated in the Government deciding to acquire the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. At this time of speaking, I may say that we are in the dark as to the inner reasons of this transaction. But when the friends of the Government and those who benefit by this transaction shall have swept off the millions which this legislation is going to enable them to pocket, some day we shall know the ins and outs of this business.
The other day, I was told that I was throwing mud and casting reflection on the Government without being able to substantiate my statements; but to day have not we heard the hon. minister of the Interior and the other gentlemen who sit * to your right, Sir, casting on us the imputation that, if we rise at this stage of the debate to register our protest .against the measure which the Government is trying to push through in the dying hours of the session, the reason is that we are tied hands and feet and at the mercy of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the big Montreal interests.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that no body should fling broadcast such a charge and state that we are actuated by pecuniary considerations, without substantiating such a charge, and I challenge the hon. gentleman and those who s'it behind him to prove that we on this side of the House are in the pay of the Canadian Pacific Company or the big Montreal interests.
Actuated solely as I am by a sense of the duty which is incumbent on me and by a desire to discharge it, I say without any fear of contradiction that never have I been approached by the Canadian Pacific Company or by the great Montreal interests; never did I receive a single cent or any other consideration that might sway t'he judgment I have to render in this House.	,
I am quite satisfied that all the hon.

members who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, are in the same free state of mind .as I am myself, and if the hon. gentlemen on the other side want' to level such charges against us, they are 'in honour bound to substantiate them and to show that their statements are borne out by the facts.
Should they prove to be unfounded, let the hon. gentlemen recant, or public opinion will point the finger of scorn at them and make them swallow their statement as an infaimous lie, a downright slander, without an atom of truth in it.
Now, let us come back foT a few moments to the nature of the charges brought forward by the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House when we stated that out of the deal which the Government is asking the House to sanction friends of the Government and a few financiers in the ring around the Government were going to pocket millions of dollars.
First, we are buying the capital stock of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. That capital stock is subdivided into five classes: guaranteed stock; first, second and third preference stocks, and the ordinary or common stock.
The .president of the Grand Trunk 'Company, Sir A. W. Smithers and Mr. Kelly have come to a decision. In a letter tabled in this House, they give their assent to the proposed agreement. The Government of [DOT] Canada undertakes to' reimburse at par the $60,000,000 of guaranteed capital, after paying for a certain number of years interest at 4 per cent; further, the Government undertakes to submit to arbitration the value of the four -stocks

the three preference stocks and the common stock.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, Messrs. Smithers and Kelly and their partners did not subscribe to that agreement without having in hand the majority of the guaranteed and preferential capital stocks for, if they did not have that majority in hand, or under their control, how could they enter into such an undertaking?
Therefore, Mr. -Speaker,, Messrs. Smithers and Kelly and their partners have now in hand a majority of the capital stock of the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
Let us try to form an estimate of the value of that capital -stock. In the Drayton-Ackworth report, which has so often been referred to during this debate, there is to be found clearly set out an answer to that question: page lxv:
"We regard the entire share capital of the company as being intrinsically of but small value at the present time. On the

-basis of present value of maintainable income the fair compensation would be very .small."
What was the value of that capital stock? Mr. Speaker, I looked up the market quotations on the London and New York stock exchanges and I find -that previously to this Bill being foreshadowed, the guaranteed stock which ranks first, was quoted below 45 per cent.
On the announcement of the terms of the arbitration agreement, there was a sharp burst in Grand Trunk issues and this guaranteed stock jumped in a few days from 45 to 50, and from 50 to 60 points, and ere long, under cover of the Government guarantee, it will no doubt sell at par, to the great advantage of the present holders. From the market quotations, at this time of speaking, the capital stock of $60,000,000 would not be worth thirty millions, and yet the Government is guaranteeing the entire value of the sixty millions. Moreover, the Government guarantees the entire payment of the stocks of the company, as they will be valued by the arbitration -award. Therefore, it was on good -ground that- I said the other day, that this deal was going to allow some financiers in the ring around the Government to pocket millions. That I stated was grounded on actual facts and on undeniable official documents.
I wish to point out a few inaccuracies in the speech of the hon. Minister of the Interior.
He charged that we availed ourselves of the Drayton-A-ckworth report, when it suited our purpose, and that we laid it aside when it did not serve our end. lOould it not be said that the minister as the pharisee of old sees the mote that is in his brother's eye and sees not the beam that is in his own eye? The minister relies on the Drayton-Acworth report,, when it recommends in the summary of conclusions, clause 41, "that the -entire share capital of the Grand Trunk, -guaranteed and ordinary, be -surrendered to the Trustees in -exchange for an annuity based on a moderate but -substantial proportion of $3,600,000, the -average sum paid as dividend in the last ten years." But the minister brushes aside the report when, after going extensively into facts and figures, the signatories of the report tell us that the sum which ought to have been spent out of revenue for the upkeep and rolling stock of the roa<i was diverted -for dividend purposes.
The minister charges that in quoting the report we wrench certain passages out of

their context. But the hon. gentleman himself easily gets rid of an important part of the report when it does not answer his purpose.
The hon. minister is no doubt right in discarding certain passages of the Drayton-Acworth report, the more so as the authors of this report stultify themselves; but he is wrong in finding fault with us for doing the same thing.
The commissioners appointed to inquire into and report on ^the situation of the Grand Trunk and ""the Canadian Pacific railways have taken cognizance of a mass of documents and established certain facts, but their findings and conclusions do not flow from their premises.
They tell us, in their report, that the Grand Trunk Company did not keep the road into a fair state of maintenance; that the $25,000,000 which ought to have been spent out of revenue for the maintenance of the road and rolling stock was diverted for dividend purposes.
But so much being said, the commissioners recommend that an indemnity be paid, based on the average amount paid as dividends in the preceding years, dividends that have not been earned.
Therefore, I submit that the conclusion and the premises are self-contradictory.
Mr. Aeworth, one of the members of the Royal Commission, was looked upon in Great Britain as a railway expert. He had written "An Essay on the history of state owned railways, in foreign countries."
He came over to Canada, thoroughly imbued with the idea that public ownership of railways was an unmitigated evil. After a rather summary investigation, when it was clearly impossible for him to await the result of exhaustive inquiries, and hailing as he did from overseas, without being conversant with the special conditions which prevail here, he recommends as one of the findings reported that the Government would act wisely in absorbing into theii railway system the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific the Canadian Northern and perhaps other railways. Is this report well grounded?
Some time after the Drayton-Acworth report had been published, Mr. Aeworth was invited to go and give evidence before the Congressional Committee at Washington, which was then sitting.
What did he say, when he appeared before that committee? His evidence would prove interesting reading and it would be no less interesting to see the sudden and new change of front made by Mr. Aeworth, following so close his volte face in the Drayton-Acworth report. Let me quote that extract in English, lest an &x-tempore translation of mine should prove too imperfect: Ottawa despatches contrast the evidence given hy Mr. W. M. Aeworth before the Congressional Committee at Washington with the conclusions embodied in his report on the Canadian railway situation. The two positions certainly cannot be reconciled. Mr. Aeworth in conjunction with Sir Henry Drayton proposed for Canada a stupendous scheme of government ownership of railways. Before the Congressional Committee, only a few days following the publication of his report on the Canadian railway situation he condemned public ownership of railways in unqualified terms. He cited the numerous failures of state owned railways-in Prussia, in France, in Russia, in Italy, in Austria, in India, in Holland, in Switzerland and in Australia. In all these countries Mr. Aeworth declares public ownership of railways has been associated with high rates, inefficiency and stunted development. Summarizing his conclusions he says:
" Railroading is a progressive science. New ideas lead to new inventions; employ new plant, new methods. And this means the spending of much new capital to be recouped by larger economies later on. The state official mistrusts ideas, pours cold water on new inventions, grudges new expenditure." Mr. Aeworth admits that the world's best example of a successfully administered state owned railway is Prussia and at once proceeds to demonstrate that the success is more apparent than real. He says :
" The German government has for many years offered an unyielding opposition to any reduction of rates while it has extracted from passengers and shippers a net revenue which after paying interest in full on the railways debt, yields in normal times a sum of $50,000,0110 towards the general expenses of the government. .	.
" The rosy views of the authors of state purchase (in Prussia) have been far from materializing. They promised reductions of rates and fares and with the great increase in traffic density ought, one cannot but think to have been able to obtain them. The average fare was indeed reduced by 13J per cent between 1900 and 1911. But freight rates were rather worse than stationary. .	.	. The
authors of the purchase further estimated that the profits to be realized would suffice to extinguish the railway debt within 60 years. In fact the sum paid for the acquisition of the railways $205,493,830, and the debt at the date of the last account with one quarter of the period expired so far from being reduced had risen to $270,132,800."
Mr. Speaker, from the evidence given by Mr, Aeworth it follows that in every country where state ownership has been given a trial, has resulted in the piling up of deficits and in deepening more and more the channels through which the people's money is being drained.
Let us still further study that opinion: Mr. Aeworth goes into facts and figures to prove that state ownership in France has been a dismal failure. Summarizing. Mr. Aeworth quotes a French authority as follows:
I(ii2

" From all points of view the experience of State railways in France is unfavourable. The state, above all, an elective administration, cannot be a good commercial manager. It works expensively and is powerless before its employees. The experience which we have recently gained has had at least one result. It has provoked a very lively movement not only against the repurchase of the railways but against all extension of state industry. The result seems to me fortunate. I hope this opinion will be maintained and that not only we but our neighbours may profit from the lesson of these facts."
The Daily Mail does not share Mr. Acworth's sweeping denunciation of the principle of public ownership, nor does it believe that all the state owned railways in the world are as bad as he paints them. The point is that Mr. Acworth has proposed for Canada the very thing he condemns in all other countries where it has been tried. He revealed himself before the Congressional Committee as a violent and indeed prejudiced opponent of government ownership of railways. Yet that is what he would give to Canada and he would demolish one very strong and solvent Canadian railway system in order to accomplish his purpose.
To say that Mr. Acworth is inconsistent is to state the fact mildly. The evidence he gave at Washington completely discredits his report on the Canadian railway situation. And it tends strongly to indicate that Mr. Acworth was not a real influence in the preparation of the report to which he has appended his name.
Well then, Mr. Speaker, when we find so flagrant contradictory statements of facts and conclusions in that report; when we find self-contradictory opinions expressed by Mr. Acworth in his report and before the congressional 'Committee at Washington, are we not justified in subscribing to the statements of fact, but in putting aside conclusions that are not derived from the premises? We are charged by the Minister of the Interior with discarding the report when it suits our purpose to do so. We have scrupulously avoided discarding that part of the report which was grounded on facts, but we have taken the liberty of showing that the conclusions were not borne out by the actual facts.
State ownership of railways is a question that is quite frequently on the 'tapis, and is discussed at great length, whenever a -question having reference to Canadian railways comes up (before the House, whether under the shape of a subsidy for the construction of a new line, or the guaranteeing of a debenture or the payment of an obligation. Invariably, some honourable gentlemen try to make out of this principle of nationalization a little political capital and draw a red herring across the track to cover the misdeeds of the Government, so that the people -may not discriminate between truth and error.


Mr. BURNHAM (text):: Would the hon. gentleman object to our acquiring the Grand Trunk system now if it were a good bargain?


Thomas Vien: If it were a good bargain for the state I would certainly favour it because I would consider it to be in the interest of the state; but my contention, as I have tried to explain it in French, is that this is not a good bargain for the state, but only a good bargain for the sellers, the owners oT tiie capital stock of the company, a stock at present much depreciated, which will go to par as soon as the agreement is carried through and approved of by legislation.
(Continuing in French)
Let us return to our subject, the railway question.
Mr. Speaker, we should like to know whether the country ought to commit itself to the principle of public ownership of railways. Are we going, without any further examination, to settle the question and decide whether we should take over the Grand Trunk railway? Willing or unwilling, we already have a state-owned system of railways. Those railways are now nationalized, but when we are about adding to our State-owned system another system of railways, which will double the mileage of our present system, I say that the .mandate given to the members of this House is quite inadequate for such a purpose. In 1917 the members of this House did not receive a mandate to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific or to nationalize the Grand Trunk. When in 1917, the honourable gentlemen went about the country from ocean to ocean and asked the electorate for a new lease of power, they told the people that the only issue before the country was the winning of the war, that every other issue was to be brushed aside so that the Government coming into power, fresh from the people, would have no other mission that the winning of the war. The war is over; peace has been declared, the empire is safe, but the Government is not appealing to the electorate.
Suppose this Government went before the people, I take it as a foregone conclusion that they would be turned out of office. I have not the slightest doubt that a majority of the electors would not return to power the present Administration, regardless of the question of state ownership of railways. Suppose a general election came on, should this issue be referred to the people, by

way of referendum, I do not entertain the slightest doubt that-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: On what does the hon. gentleman base his information that the people are not in favour of the nationalization of railways? How does he get his information from the people?


Thomas Vien: I am happy to Teply in Moliere's beautiful language to the question put by my hon. friend who is quite conversant with the French language.
I was just going to explain to the hon. gentleman that .supposing the question of nationalizing the railways were referred to the electorate, and a general election came on, a similar result would be obtained to that just reached in the province of Ontario; this Administration would beyond the shadow of a doubt be defeated, but the project of nationalizing railways might possibly carry.


John Hampden Burnham: Is the hon. gentleman not going back now on what he said? Did he not say that he was agreeable to the acquisition of the Grand Trunk system provided it was a good bargain? Why go into all this?


Thomas Vien: railways for the cheap transportation of our products.
"We shall never get from private companies such reductions of freight rates as we stand in need of, the State alone can do so. If in so doing, the railways pile .up deficits, it is but fair that the whole country should help protecting our farming industry, just as the Canadian consumer protects other industries."
Such was my interlocutor's reply; but I could not help reflecting under what a deep error he was labouring ! If it be true ithat the consumer has to pay for what is involved in protection, is it not fair that the user of our railways should pay an adequate freight rate, in order that the railways may carry on?
Further, when the era of our loans is closed, which cannot be far distant, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian farmer will realize the sad outcome of his infatuation.
We cannot go on forever borrowing from three to four hundred millions a year. A country is administered like a going business concern. We have now to settle our accounts. The financial status of the country is soon going to give rise to a new problem.	_
How are we going to meet the heavy obligations involved in the debt under which cur country is staggering?
How shall _we succeed in giving a fair and square deal to our soldiers? How are we going to raise an already insufficient revenue which will prove still more inadequate to-morrow? And if we have to make good the deficits which will occur in the operation of our railways, shall we not be stared in the face by land taxations, by taxation on the products of the farm, as in certain countries in Europe where each bushel of wheat pays tribute to the State, and where each acre of land under cultivation has to 'bear a heavy burden of taxation.
I cannot help believing that the Western farmer will soon realize the utter falsity of the policy he is now advocating.
Let us now revert to the province of Ontario. Here again, an important group of farmers advocate nationalization.
Some of them are being carried away by a movement developing in such a direction. The inception of that movement dates back to the time when the Hydro-Electric commission was created, with a view to transforming waternpowers in electrical energy, under provincial control.
Starting from that principle that public utilities should be developed by the State,

and assimilating as they did a water-,power to a railway, and intoxicated by the passing success which attended the creation of that commission, certain groups in the province cf Ontario are advocates of state-Gwned railways.
M. BURNHAM (text): Does the hon. gentleman object to the government's owning and managing a line of vessels upon the ocean?


Thomas Vien: The question which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burnham) has put is absolutely irrelevant to the subject under consideration. It. involves a study of the policy of the Canadian Government in so far as state ownership of steamship lines is concerned, as well as a study of the general policy of the Government in relation to its shipbuilding programme and its ownership of vessels produced in Canadian shipyards. I do not believe that this would be the proper time to discuss the subject.
(Continuing in French).
Mr. 'Speaker, before being interrupted by my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) I was stating that a certain group of people in Ontario were advocating in good faith Government-owned railways, .but let me add that they are not a majority.
The majority of those who to-day are in favour of the Grand Trunk being nationalized and taken over by the State are the very people who, while charging us with being in the pay of the Canadian Pacific and the great Montreal interests, sit at the feet of the magnates of the Bank of Commerce and the former owners of the Canadian Northern by whom they are prompted in the expression of their views. These magnates control this Government. They have succeeded in having appointed as managers of the Government-owned railways their most devoted friends, and what they most strenuously want to bring about is the displacing of the financial centre from Montreal to Toronto.
Making of Toronto the metropolis of Canada ,concentrating thither the administration of our railways, such is their dream. They shrink not before the taking over of the Grand Trunk, or even the acquisition of the Canadian Pacific, nothing, regardless of deficits. Were we not right in saying that, in pushing this Bill through, the Government were playing into the hands of their friends?
Far be it from me to suggest that all those who, in the province of Ontario, ad-

vocate the taking over of the Grand Trunk are acting in bad faith. Many advocates of nationalization are intoxicated by the apparent success of the Hydro-Electric. I am personally inclined to believe that it is a wise policy that water powers, as public property should be transformed into electrical energy, to the advantage of the people. As many private companies have abused the privileges granted to them, in indulging in a rate raising orgy to the detriment of the people, it is not to be wondered at that the good people of Ontario should be in favour of the Hydro-Electric commission. But there is a world of difference between developing a water-power and operating a railway.
Once a water-power is transformed into electrical energy, operating expenses are kept very low. There is only the upkeep of the transmission line to attend to, as the municipalities themselves are the distributing agents within their own limits.
But when we have to deal with a railway, it is quite another matter. In the hands of a Government how easily it degenerates into an engine of speculation, favoritism, undue influence and bad administration!
Are railway ties to be bought, the Gov-erment favorite will be neither the most honest merchant, nor the lowest tenderer, but a political friend, regardless of the quality of the railway ties which, owing to poor quality, will soon rot beneath the rails and may cause a train to run off the track, an accident which occurred several times, last year, on the Intercolonial.
When coal is to be bought, they will not consider the lowest tender, but they will look for a friend of the men now seated in power. In manv cases it will supply nothing but coal dust, and the engines fed with this fuel of an inferior quality will be unable to haul the train within the time fixed in the schedules, and often will they be from ten to fifteen hours late, as is well known to those who have had the sad experience of this, while travelling on the government railways.
Every year, the House of Commons will be asked to vote moneys required as a result of the deficits. How will the honourable members of this House be able to get a clear idea of what the management of the railways really is? It would ibe impossible to find out whether it was honest or dishonest, the volume of business transacted being so large.
Secret funds will be created to feed the electoral machine, and in election time pressure will be brought to bear on the
thousands and thousands of employers by the party in power. That the Government operated railways are a source of increasing deficits. I have amply shown, I think, in quoting the evidence given by Mr. Ackworth, the report of the Drayton commission and our own personal experience. But were any further evidence needed, I would find it in the statement made in the Senate by the honourable Sir James Lougheed in answer to a question put by the honourable senator Casgrain.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. gentleman is not going to refer to a debate in the Senate.


Thomas Vien: No, I am going to give some information given by the Government in the Senate in reply to a question by one of the honourable senators. I do not want to trespass on the rules of the House, but I suppose I can refer to information which has been given there.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think the hon. gentleman is entitled to make use of the proceedings in the Senate.


Thomas Vien: Well then, I can take it for granted, with the information I have, that the following is the result of the operation of the Canadian National railways by the Government.
(Translation):	Since I am not entitled
under the rules of this House to read statements made by the Government in the Senate, I shall not, at least, infringe any rule in showing that the expectations held out by the Government last year are far from having been realised.
The Government claimed that, with a sound and honest management, with a competent staff, the state owned railway system would be a paying proposition. Now, what return did we get from the operation of the Canadian Northern? For the period extending from the 1st of October, 1917, to the 31st of August, the gross earnings were $93,502,669. The working expenses amount- -ed, for the same period, to $93,188,470. During the same period the Government had to make to the company a further loan of $71,606,463 for construction, betterments and equipment. For the same period, there was a large operating deficit. Up to the 31st of December, the deficit was $4,846,103, and from the 1st of October,
1917,	to the 31st of December, 1917, the deficit reached $2,368,122. From the 1st of January, 1918, to the 31st of December
1918,	the deficit was $14,643,753, and it is

estimated that the -deficit for the present . year will reach $5,587,028.
Decidedly, the rosy views o,f the Government have been far from materializing. But, I ask, Sir, what view are we to take of public ownership, when we consider that these sums do not cover the interest on the cash investment, the reserve fund for wear and tear and renewals, and interest, which no well-advised company would neglect to provide for?
Mr. Speaker, I submit that we have reason to fear that the acquisition of the Grand Trunk by the Government may load this country with additional deficits. Were this railroad a paying proposition by itself, when in the hands of the Government it cannot but increase the already large deficits which the country has incurred as a result of the improvident policy of the Government. Those deficits are making wider and deeper the yawning hollow in the public chest, and that chasm must be filled up. How shall we fill that gap otherwise than by levying a tax on land and the produce of the land, which tax the friends of the Government -are already foreshadowing.
The collection of the enormous taxes which are to be levied will soon set at rest the passing hobby which certain groups of our population have been riding of late. The people will realize, too late, perhaps, who were their true friends; they will understand the falsity of the principles on which the whole policy of the Government is based.
Far be it from me to find fault with the opinions held by the Canadian farmers.
Two years ago, when five thousand farmers came down to Ottawa to meet the Government, they wanted to stand and be heard at the bar of thi-s House so as to give vent to their deep regret on account of the mismanagement of the common weal, and in order to sue for reforms. I apprised you of their wish and it was due to my efforts that we succeeded in having the correspondence laid upon the Table, -after having vainly handed it to His Excellency the Governor General and to yourself, Mr. Speaker. It was only by diint of hard work that we had their memorial praying for a government of the people by the people placed upon Hansard.
To-day should the Government appeal to the farmers, they wouM receive at the hands of those gentlemen, I am sure, the same rebuff which the Tory government in Ontario just got and the Tory government in Ottawa shall soon get. So far as we, [IMr. Vien.]
members of the Opposition, are concerned, we are not afraid of appealing to the Canadian electorate. We have endeavoured to uphold the best interests of the people and we know that they will be grateful to us. We broke none of our pledges and we fully lived up to the faiith placed in us.
We are sometimes reproached with lacking political acumen because we did not discover in time what was the trend of public opinion. Come to the province of Quebec, Sir, and you will see an enlightened, contented and prosperous community, led by its statesmen, its clergymen-its educators for the last three centuries. Those people do not believe that the moon is made of green cheese; they do not act like boy-s who try to blow into the -air empty bubbles which burst and vanish before their eyes. They are wise and practical.
We shall not be afraid to go to them, trusting that they will be capable of discerning truth from falsehood in the matter of the taking over of the Grand Trunk.
When we show them in its true light the agreement submitted to us, the people of Quebec and I dare say the whole people of Canada will deem that we have been deserving of their gratitude and they will still place in us all their confidence.
It wi-ll be -sufficient to explain to them that the proposed transaction gives an inflated value to depreciated stocks and owing to the enhancement of these values, stock-jobbers, manipulators and friends in the ring around the Government are getting the best of the deal, at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers. For the last three weeks, we have been charged with criticizing without suggesting -a better policy. Sir, I have a suggestion to -(make to the Government. We are now encumbered with the Grand Trunk Pacific; we cannot get rid of it; because they did not abide by the clauses of the- agreement of 1903 the Government has relieved the Grand Trunk and deprived themselves of all means of compulsion. Then, there is nothing left for us to do but to resign ourselves to the inevitable and to keep the Grand Trunk Pacific.
The Grand Trunk Company, relieved of its responsibilities towards the Grand Trunk Pacific, can still exist and hold out; let us keep our hands off. In the hands of the Government, it would be another defaulting railway. Some people will retort: " Now, you take over every bankrupt road and you leave out those that -are paying; you accept the whey and leave out the cream."

But, there is no cream in sight. In our hands, the Grand, Trunk will pile up deficits every year. Let us at least avoid those deficits. Does not Mr. Acworth say that in every country state-ownership of railways has been a dismal failure and has involved nations in financial ruin?
Sir, an enormous responsibility rests upon the present Government and the members of this House. Having been elected by the people to uphold their interests, we are the trustees of the national inheritance, and it is our undeniable duty not to betray the mandate we hold through public trust nor to leave it a prey to the financial interests, whether in Montreal or in Toronto. The Government have no right to -allow a few individuals to grow rich at the expense of the people or to jeopardize the legacy transmitted to us by our -ancestors.
What a splendid inheritance and how prosperous it was when, in 1911, the Liberal government handed it to the present Administration ! From 1896 to 1911, Laur-ier had rounded it in a wonderful manner. He had received it in 1896, when the revenue was $35,000,000 and the expenditure forty million dollars. He handed it back in 1911 with a revenue of $225,000,000 and an expenditure of $180,000,000, or a surplus of forty-five millions.
After eight years of management, this Governriient have placed that inheritance on the verge of bankruptcy. Our net debt of $350,000,000 in 1911 now amounts to about two billion dollars and they keep piling it up to an alarming extent.
At a time when all serious-minded people a.re alarmed at the condition of -affairs in this country, our irresponsible -Government -saddles the poor Canadian taxpayer with an additional debt of $500,000,000, without mentioning the $180,000,000 that we shall h-ave to spend on this railway, -so as to put it in good working order and complete the terminal facilities at Montreal and Toronto.
If to -that we add the annual deficits that this foolhardy .adventure is hound to create, we re-alizze at once the precarious situation of our resources.
When travelling through the magnificent, countryside of our beautiful province of Quebec, or of the province of Ontario, I often think of the precious legacy which [DOT]our forefathers have left us.
My thoughts wander back to Champlain leaving behind his beloved France -and- to those heroes who -accompanied him to the hanks of the St. Lawrence, there to establish a new empire in the name of France (and Chistianity.
I think of those fearless missionaries who for one hundred and fifty years, roamed -this beautiful -country -and pushed forward to the very limits of America, bringing the Gospel to the benighted red men,, teaching them the advantages of civilisation.
I -am reminded of our French heroes who during la full century did battle -under extraordinary circumstances, one hand on the plough, while the other carried a gun, cultivating the soil and defending their homes against the savage hordes or the incursions of the English.
I think of those who followed, during the period of British domination and who fought in -a manner less bloody, it is true, but none the less glorious, for the conquest of the political liberty which is o-urs -at the present day.
I think of our Clergy, so intelligent, so zealous; our clergy who guided the education iof this colony from its birth; our clergy to whom we owe what knowledge we have of things both sacred -and profane and the development of -all our institutions; the clergy to whom we owe the preservation not only of the faith of our fathers but -also of the beautiful French tongue which we -cherish so dearly.
When recalling all these things to -my mind, I frequently realize that the imperative duty of the present generation i-s to preserve intact this legacy -conquered at the cost of such toil, such sacrifices -and such devotion; and not only t-o preserve it intact, but to hand it down with-a greater worth and a greater prosperity to- the generations that will succeed us.
What a pity to see -our beloved -country of Canada in the hands of the unfaithful ladministr-ators who govern us ito-d-ay! How -sad to see such a splendid birthright jeopardized by their criminal recklessness!
Let u-s hope that the hour of retribution is at hand; let u.s hope that under the pressure of public opinion this unworthy Government shall at last be forced to render an account of its -stewardship to the people of this -country. What will be the verdict? There is about it no room for doubt. We shall witness a -clean sweep and those who to-day occupy the Treasury benches will be there no- longer. It will be the cleaning of the Augean stables and God knows the cleaning must he thorough, if those who come after them are to find suitable quarters-. We who hail from Quebec do not fear the verdict of -the people and we are loud in our demands that the



day of reckoning wait no longer, so that we may appear once more before our judges for a new mandate. Until then we will continue without fear to discharge our duty watching the Government's actions with the eyes of a very Argus and guarding the public treasury with the tenacity of a Cerberus. And then fortified in the sense of duty well discharged, we .-hall rejoice in the thought that we have done our [DOT] utmost to give to this country once again a clean and honest Administration such as that presided over by the late lamented Bight Hon. Sir W. Laurier.
Without the shadow of a doubt an appeal to the people would mean the defeat of the present Government.
The change can only be for the better, since it is impossible to find a worse Government than the one we have today. The people have all to win and nothing to lose. Under the safe guidance of a progressive Administration this country which we love so much will resume its march, briefly interrupted, towards progress, prosperity and happiness.


Mr. HUME CRONYN (London):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak at this stage of the debate I certainly do not intend to cover any extended ground; to my mind it would be impertinent to do so after the very full and comprehensive speeches we have had from both sides of the House. After the clear and incisive statement of the Minister of the Interior this afternoon, and after statements such as were made by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) and the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar), it would, as I say, be folly for me to attempt to go generally into this question. I lay emphasis in particular on the remarks of the ex-Minister of Agriculture because occupying, as he does, a seat on the cross benches his speech struck me as a reasoned, sound, and moderate presentation of the facts in this case. However, I want to' refer to one phase which has been mentioned by the members on your left, Mr. Speaker, and which it seems to me has perhaps not been considered with sufficient care-I refer to the acquisition of the $60,000,000 of guaranteed stock, called the "present guaranteed stock." Now it must he 'admitted at once this is no ordinary transaction. It is indeed*, in one sense, a business dealing between relatives and, as one knows, in such matters strict legal rights and rules of business do not prevail. We have, I take it, an absolute legal right, as a creditor of the Grand 
Trunk railway, to proceed to judgment and execution and to drive that road into the hands of a receiver or into liquidation. I think it is generally believed that such a course would be unfair and disastrous. That aspect of the matter was so well dealt with in the remarks of the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that there is nothing I can add to it. But under the circumstances which exist and having regard to the long history of the Grand Trunk railway in this country, the question presents itself: Is the transaction, particularly referring to the present guaranteed stock, a fair and equitable one? Now the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has emphasized that part of the bargain on more than one occasion, and he has stated in the most positive manner that this country is making a gift of from fifteen to thirty millions of dollars to that particular class of stockholders. With all due deference to the hon. member's lengthy experience in finance, I venture to suggest that he is labouring under a fallacy in propounding such an argument, and the fallacy lies in the fact that he confuses market price with intrinsic value. I am quite prepared to admit that in normal times where a corporation is carrying on, and has carried on, a business which pays its way and regularly and steadily earns a rate of dividend, the market price may be taken as an indication of the value of the stock of that company. But let any extraordinary situation prevail, let the times, as they are at present, be out of joint, and the market value is no longer an index. As a matter of truth the market price always presumes a sale, and that market price is an index only of the shares which may from time to time be offered on that market. The law of supply and demand, it appears to me, rules with greater strictness on the stock exchange than perhaps anywhere else in the financial world. Let there he a few shareholders who, by force of circumstance, or for other reasons, must get rid of their stock, and unless there . are at the same time purchasers who are prepared to take on that particular stock the price will inevitably fall and may fall very considerably. So that when we speak of acquiring $60,000,000 worth of stock at the present market price we speak of what is absolutely an impossibility. Most of us will remember that some few years ago a group of the most acute and powerful railway people in the United States desired not to acquire the whole of the stock but to get control of the Northern Pacific rail-

way. Now I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, those men did not start out on that acquisition with a brass band; they were not under the disadvantage which any government is in carrying on public negotiations; they took every precaution that could be taken to conceal their hand in the matter. And what happened ? The Northern Pacific stock which, as I remember, was selling in the 80's in March was selling on the 9th of May at $1,000 a share, and a colossal panic existed in the New York market. So that to obtain by any possible means1- unless using the strictly legal rod which is in our hands-anything like even a con-t"rblling interest in $60,000,000 worth of stock, is an absolute impossibility. It is quite true, as the member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) said, that if he acted as arbitrator or judge and evidence of the market value was brought before him, he would he 'compelled to consider that as one of the plainest evidences of value; but that is only in case of a limited number of shares; when it comes to the absorption or amalgamation of a, concern, wholly different factors prevail. In a small way I have, from time to time, been interested in negotiations towards taking over going concerns, and in no case did either the buyer or seller pay the least attention to the market value, or rather market price, (for market value is a misnomer in a sense), of 'the stock. The things considered were the net assets over liabilities and the earning power of the company. It is only a few weeks since I was called upon to consider taking over a going concern whose stock was quoted on the stock exchange at a considerable figure-a figure very much in advance of this guaranteed stock of which we are speaking-and the terms of that bargain dr proposal were that we should guarantee the public liabilities of the company and should in time, after taking over and winding up, return to the stockholders what equity there might be.
We looked into the matter and came to the conclusion that the proposal was one we could not entertain. But did the vendor for one instant point to the fact that the stock was quoted at the market price? Not at all; he knew, as every business man would know, that in a transaction of this kind covering the total absorption of a company, that was not a factor to be considered.


Mr. PARENT:: May I ask the hon. member on what stock exchange that particular company was listed-Toronto, Montreal or New York?


Hume Cronyn: The one I last mentioned was listed on the Toronto stock exchange.


Georges Parent: I would not dare to ask the hon. member the name of the company.


Hume Cronyn: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question? He is ah authority on these things.


Hume Cronyn: I do not pose as an
authority.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If as a matter of business the hon. member was going to pay one hundred shares of stock, would he regard the value at which the stock was selling in the market as a fair index of what he should pay for it?


Hume Cronyn: I assume that if the stock were quoted on the market, it would not be possible for me to persuade any seller to give me the stock at a lower figure;' I would have to be satisfied to take the stock quotation. Whether it was a fair index of value or not, I might be prepared to pay the market price.
It is -well known that for years several of. the bank stocks sold at a price which yielded a, very low return. They did so because the prospect of profits in the future, the certainty of their standing, their very large reserve funds, were an attraction to purchasers.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I understand ihe hon. member, he says that he would regard the listed price of the stock as a fair indication of its value and that he would not pay any more for it if he were buying it. Will the hon. member explain-he is a gentleman who understands these things- why we undertake to pay par for stock that is selling in the market for 55 or whatever it is selling at?


Hume Cronyn: I have evidently failed entirely in making my point, and I regret that much. There is all the difference in the world between buying 100 or 1,000 shares or $10,000 or $100,000 worth of stock and buying 600,000 shares or $60,000,000 worth. When you proceed on the market or in any other way to buy stock, the very moment that you clean up the floating stock, the very moment that you go to a person who does not want to sell, who considers that his stock is worth par, at that moment your transaction ceases unless you are willing to pay the price he asks.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then am I to understand that we are being forced by the Grand Trunk into paying that price or go out of the deal?


Hume Cronyn: As I said before, this is a transaction out of the ordinary. We are not using the brutal methods "which we might employ; we are trying to make what

appears to us to be a fair and equitable bargain. So far as financing is concerned, the point I was trying to make was that in my opinion the arrangement was favourable.


Georges Parent: Just because the hon. member is so fair to the ordinary common people who would be holding the stock at the time of the arbitration, may I ask him, if he were an arbitrator, knowing that the common stock would be selling in London or New York at the time that the arbitrators were doing their work, at, say, 80 or 90, what would he consider the stock worth then?


Hume Cronyn: The hon. member, as I understand the matter, is speaking of ordinary or common stock. I have not been dealing with the ordinary or common stock. That was, of course issued at a very great discount; it does not represent anything like 100 cents on the dollar. Once the arbitration started-


Georges Parent: Supposing it is in the market at 80 or 90, if you like?


Hume Cronyn: It is in the market at 8 or 9, as I remember it. But, as I said on a former occasion, it does- not seem to me that the market value of those stocks has anything whatever to do with the price which we are called upon to pay for the value of the road. That is the fallacy, I think, that has gone through the arguments used on both sides of the House. What we want to pay for is the net assets over liabilities plus the possibility of net profits. That is the crux of the situation, and the hon. member for Joliet'te (Mr. Denis), in what seemed to me a fair and logical speech, put his finger right on that point. Are we, in making this bargain, satisfied that there are sufficient assets over the liabilities which we agree to assume? Once we are satisfied as to that, and once we are satisfied that arbitration is a proper and fair means of determining whether there is anything else-


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman will, of course, realize that the stock has not paid any dividends for years, and the minute it is guaranteed by the Government to pay 4 per cent it will increase in value.


Hume Cronyn: The guaranteed stock for two years, owing to the war, has not paid a dividend. Up to that time, with the exception of one year, when, as I understand, it paid only 3} per cent, it paid 4 per cent regularly and the road earned that and much more than that; it earned enough to
pay dividends on the first and second preference and even a small dividend on the third preference.


Mr. CANNON:: Does the hon. member consider the Grand Trunk holders as unwilling sellers?


Hume Cronyn: If one reads the history of that road, the very glowing prospectuses that were put out, the long time during which the stockholders have held their stock without any return-some even of the . debenture holders went without interest for years in the early days1-I think, perhaps, certain of the stockholders may still have such faith in our country and the Grand Trunk that they would be unwilling to sell.


Lucien Cannon: And we shall have to pay for faith?


Hume Cronyn: They have, perhaps, more faith than some of us have. However, as I say, it seems to me that is the crux of the whole proposition. In the bargain which the Government made, which was, I think, set out in their first letter, although there it*was set out in another form from that which it assumes to-day, what we have to decide is whether the assets of the company are greater than the liabilities which we agree to assume, and then leave the rest to arbitration. Hon. members will say: Are we certain of that?


Georges Parent: If we leave the rest to the arbitrators, there will be nothing left?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must remind hon. gentlemen that the House is not in committee and that the hon. member who has the floor is entitled to make his address without any interruptions.


Hume Cronyn: I think we have on that point perhaps the best evidence that can be procured. What does one usually do in a transaction of this kind? One examines the assets of the concern one proposes buying. Has not that been done? Was not that one of the purposes for which the Drayton-Ac-worth Commission was appointed? Was not such an examination made and a report furnished to the Government based on that examination, and have not these transactions originated and followed on simply from the report and recommendations of that commission? I think so. Then, we have another rough test, not conclusive test, but one which always plays a part. From 1917, for a period of ten years, the road has been able to pay its fixed charges as well as a dividend to the guaranteed stockholders and the first, second and third prefer-


Georges Parent: They have changed their minds since.


Hume Cronyn: They no doubt have, because they saw that the Government was standing firm; that the Government's offer was the best offer; that that offer has been adhered to although changed in form, practically from that day to this. Further than that I received not one letter, but many letters from our financial agents in England and Scotland, not only protesting against this treatment, but notifying us that because of the treatment by Canada of the British bondholders of the Grand, Trunk, they were withdrawing, and they did withdraw, moneys which had been invested in Canada in past years. So distressed was I that I went to the then Minister of Finance and asked for a statement of the Canadian side of the case, because I felt certain that they were misled perhaps by a one-sided report, and that Canada was not proposing to do something which was eminently unfair and which would be considered in the Mother Country as a breach of faith.


Lucien Cannon: Did that conversation
take place at the time the Grand Trunk was seeking financial assistance from the Government?


Hume Cronyn: I am not sufficiently in the confidence of the Government or familiar enough with the details of the case to give the exact date, when such financial aid was being sought but the conversation alluded to took place about a year ago this month.
I was, I confess, somewhat amused at the praise which the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) gave to the management of the Grand

Trunk. I have no desire to cast the slightest doubt on that, but it has always been my belief, and I think it has been the general impression throughout this country, that a company whose board of directors at least, resided three thousand miles away from Canada could perhaps not be expected to make the best of the situation in this country. I fancy my hon. friend would be the first to protest if this country were managed from Downing Street. We used to hear a good deal about that in the old days, and I think the two cases are comparable in that sense.
There has been a grievous complaint of want of notice. That also has been dealt with. This matter was brought to the attention of the House at least eighteen months ago, and if we did not know of it the public of England were very well informed and constant references were made to it in their press, in their correspondence, and in their conversation. I was not a member of the House at that time, but if my memory holds good I am not aware that the then Government gave any great notice to this House when they brought down their Grand Trunk Pacific proposals. I doubt if there was one year's, six months', one month's, or even one week's notice. The whole agreement, again speaking from memory, was brought down, signed, sealed -I was almost going to say, and delivered -'and all the House was permitted to do was to say yes or no. I am not aware that any commission was suggested at that time to investigate whether this undertaking was one into which the country should go, nor had -there been, so far as I am aware, any report on the situation corresponding to the Drayton-Acworth report.


Georges Parent: Has that prevented my hon. friend from supporting that policy for ten years?


Hume Cronyn: At that time I was not a member of the House nor actively engaged in politics. I am free to confess, however, that if I did so I have had to repent in dust and ashes since. Now it is suggested that we should have a further commission on this question. Just let us see what might happen if that suggestion were adopted. The Drayton-Acworth Commission took the best part of a year, I understand, to make their findings. One hon. -member says that this new commission should first examine every rail and every spike on the system. That would certainly take as long as did the Drayton-Acworth Commission. Then we get

a report from that commission, and it is favourable. Where are we then? We have to start negotiations again. We have to see whether the Grand Trunk people are willing to sell, and on what terms, and before we get through those negotiations it will ibe time for another commission, because the report of that commission will be out of date, as it is now claimed the Drayton-Acworth report is.


Arthur Meighen: And how much money would we have lost in the meantime?


Hume Cronyn: I shall close by saying it appears to me that the bargain under all the circumstances is a favourable one, and that we can hope under a non-partisan proper Canadian management the Grand Trunk Railway system when it comes into the hands of the people and becomes part of the Canadian National system will prosper and progress as we believe this country will.


Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Last Mountain):: Mr. 'Speaker, I rise just to make
plain where I stand in respect to government ownership. The debate has been driven into that line, and it would appear that the issue was government ownership or private ownership. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) said this afternoon that the western provinces were solid for government ownership. I think that is largely true, but it does not follow that the western provinces are solid behind the method to be employed in taking over the Grand Trunk. Some mention has been made of protests and memorials from boards of trade against this Bill. In my opinion, if more time was given there would ibe more protests, and it is simply foT the reason that the people of this country do not understand this Bill that we have not had more protests. If reason were needed why more time should be taken to consider this matter I think it was given to the House by theMinisterof Railways himself. In speaking some days ago in this debate he pointed out that in 1903 the Government launched into the Grand Trunk Pacific project, and some time afterward a nigger was discovered in the woodpile; the agreement was not what it appeared to be on the face of it. For that reason I think it would be well to take time, that we may guard against the same mistake this time. This is a tremendous undertaking that will involve this country in very heavy obligations, and I think it would be well for us to take time to consider it. Let the people of this country get to understand the arrangement. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. iRowell) said during the debate that if more time were given, the opposition to this measure would get organized and he seemed to fear that. In my judgment, if public opinion could be mustered in opposition to this measure in sufficient strength to kill it, it should be killed. 1 have confidence in the common sense and good judgment of the people of this country, and do not believe they will be taken in on any propaganda from the Canadian Pacific or any other source.
I am in favour of government ownership, and I am ready to take over the Grand Trunk at the earliest possible moment, but I want to know that we are getting the system at a right price. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) stated the other evening that we should deal, if not leniently with, at least with justice to the British investor. I think every one will agree with that. We do not want to do anything but what is just. He also mentioned that much of this stock is probably held by widows. In this connection let me say, we have widows in this country to look after, and while we want to deal justly with every investor who sees fit to invest his or her money in Canada it does not follow, nor is it good business, that we should go beyond that.
I submit that the contention is unsound -that if we drive a business bargain with the stockholders it will injure Canada's credit or prevent funds from coming in for investment. I believe that the British investor knows exactly the condition of our railway business, he knows the precise financial condition of the Grand Trunk, and he knows very well, also, that if the Canadian people, through their representatives in Parliament, pay more for the concern than it is worth it is not good business; and the truth is that any investor would deliberate for a very long time before investing money in a country that did business of that character. Now, Sir, I think that the Grand Trunk should be taken over, but the price should be fixed on a revenue-producing basis and not on the difference between the assets and liabilities. This may seem a hard bargain to the soft-hearted gentleman who feels so kindly towards the British investor, but it is business nevertheless, and I believe it is the kind of business which the people in the western provinces, who have been rightly termed " public ownership people," desire this Government to make. They want the Grand Trunk taken over, but not at any

price. They want it taken over at the earliest possible moment at the right price.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: Assuming that the
revenue to-day is a certain fixed amount, and that it were known that in one year's time that revenue would be doubled, does my hon. friend say that the shareholders should be deprived of the revenue which to his certain knowledge would be so increased in a year from now?


John Frederick Johnston: If I wanted to buy a farm I would buy it for what it would produce, and if I found it encumbered with buildings that would give no revenue I would not take it.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Take a farm of 640 acres which is thoroughly tilled and fertilized and summer fallowed, on which you can sow a crop, no work being necessary the following year; would you buy it on a producing basis?


John Frederick Johnston: Most decidedly I would. On the other hand, what is the condition of this railroad? We are told on very good authority in the Drayton-Acworth report, that, instead of a revenue-producing condition obtaining in respect of that railway, money that should have gone towards maintenance was distributed in dividends.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will permit me


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. If the hon. member desires to speak now he may do so and exhaust his right to speak. But I cannot allow further interruptions in the form of questions.


George Brecken Nicholson: The ground in connection with this whole matter has been covered so fully that it seems almost futile to say anything further. Some points, however, have been raised in the discussion on the amendment introduced this afternoon which it seems to me it would be worth while to consider briefly before passing from the subject entirely. The amendment suggests that the Bill before the House be not now read a third time, but that the third reading be postponed and a commission appointed to investigate the question of acquiring the Grand Trunk railway and incorporating it with the National system. In other words, it recommends that the whole matter be left in abeyance for an indefinite period. In dealing with the amendment this afternoon the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) stated that there was nothing in the Drayton-Acworth report-a report trans-
mitted to the Government and to Parliament by a committee of experts who made a thorough investigation of the subject- that would justify the Government in the action which it is taking at the present time. In this connection I desire to refresh the memory of the hon. gentleman by a quotation from the Drayton-Acworth report. At page xlvii I find:
We have recommended then that the control of the three companies, Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific, pass into other hands ; that the rights of the creditors of all three companies be preserved intact; but that the railways of the three companies be not handed over to, or operated by the Government. It is necessary, therefore, to find some new body or bodies to whom they can be transferred. We think the question, whether there should be one body or more, Is answered by the facts that we have already cited. The Canadian Northern is weak in the East. The Grand Trunk, with the inadequate Prairie branches of the Canadian Northern would be almost powerless to compete in the West with the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific. The natural tendency of the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern organizations, if left separate, would be for each to invade the territory of the other. Remaining separate, the Canadian Northern system would need to spend many millions of dollars to obtain an adequate hold on the east in competition with the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk. Remaining separate, the Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific system' would need to spend many millions of dollars on new branches in the West, in order to hold its own with the Candian Pacific and the Canadian Northern. And this money would be needed at once, for till it was spent neither organization would possess a complete system. Canada cannot afford all these new railways, and does not need three competitive systems. We recommend therefore that the three undertakings, the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk, and the Grand Trunk Pacific he united in one system.
That sentence embodies exactly what the Government is doing or endeavouring to do by the measure now before the House; that is to say, to unite in one whole the 'Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. The report continues :
To whom then should Its management he entrusted?
After canvassing the possibility of turning the whole group of railways over to a private company in order that private ownership might be given a further test, the Drayton-Acworth Commission puts that idea aside as utterly impracticable and comes to the following conclusion:
Having then arrived at the conclusion that the transfer, of the three undertakings to a commercial company is not feasible, we recommend that they be handed over to a Board of Trustees to control and manage on behalf of, and on account of, the people of Canada. The

trustees should be organized as a company with a nominal capital. But in effect they would be a public authority.
, Is not that exactly what is being done in connection with the co-ordination of the whole of the government-owned railways and the linking up with them of the Grand Trunk Pacific system?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No.


Mr.   GANNON@: It is not the same thing.


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. member says it is not the same thing.
, Mr. McKENZIE: No.
, Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:	I must take
direct issue with the hon. member on that statement.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Did the Minister of the Interior not tell us that the Canadian Northern Company, the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the Grand Trunk Pacific are to continue in existence, each to retain its corporate powers running by [DOT] itself?


George Brecken Nicholson: Perhaps the
hon. member may have been so far unable to comprehend the plan that has been suggested as to be led to stand up in this House and say that each of these railways is to be operated as a separate entity in its own corporate existence.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is what the minister says; I am not saying it.


George Brecken Nicholson: I do not think that the hon. member can quote anything from the minister which will justify that statement. The minister has stated that the trustees incorporated as a company, just as it has been set out in the Drayton-Acworth report, will take the companies as they are with their complete corporate existence, but he does not say, nor the Government does not say, nor does anybody who supports this measure say, that these concerns are going to be operated independently of one another. They are going to be taken and merged into one complete system. Their corporate existence makes no more difference in regard to them than does the corporate existence of the Central Vermont, or the Great Western, or the Chicago and Grand Trunk as parts of the Grand Trunk Railway system. Nor does it make any more difference in so far as this is concerned than does the corporate existence of the Montreal and Ottawa railway, the Ontario and Quebec railway, the Central railway of Quebec, or the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie as parts of the Canadian Pacific system. They are merged into one complete system for the purpose of operation. If the hon. gentleman does not understand that then it is impossible to get it through his head, and if it is impossible for the argument that has been put forward to sink down into his head, the case from that angle is utterly hopeless.


Georges Parent: Is the hon. gentleman under the impression that the name " Grand Trunk railway" is going to disappear as a result of the transaction we are putting through now?


George Brecken Nicholson: No, I am not under the impression that the name " Grand Trunk railway" is going to disappear. The Grand Trunk will be merged with the Canadian National railways just as the Central Vermont is merged with the Grand Trunk, just as the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie is merged with the Canadian Pacific, and just as the Intercolonial is merged with the Canadian National railways. The names have not disappeared.


Georges Parent: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the board of directors is going to remain as the board of directors of the Grand Trunk?


George Brecken Nicholson: No, there is no suggestion before the House or the country that the board of directors of the Grand Trunk will remain. A plan has been suggested by which a committee of management will control the Grand Trunk and work harmoniously with the Canadian National railways until such time as this agreement has been finally consummated, when the whole line will be turned over to the trustees who have been managing the Canadian National railways and who will organize and control the whole system.


Georges Parent: If the hon. gentleman is satisfied with that so much the better.


Georges Henri Boivin: OrdeT. I must ask the hon. member (Air. Parent) if he desires to make any remarks, to rise and address the Chair.


George Brecken Nicholson: The leader of the Opposition says that there is nothing in the Drayton-Acworth report to justify the terms that have been suggested. Again, if he will refer to page 65 of the Drayton-Acworth report, he will see the following statement:
We think this is a case for generosity rather than strict justice. Canada is under obiiga-

tions to the Grand Trunk shareholders, who, in the early days, with but small Government assistance, and in competition with the railways of the United States with their vastly greater resources, built up the first Canadian railway system. In later times the company has had further to meet the competition of heavily subsidized Canadian rivals. And it cannot be said that at any stage of its history the shareholders have obtained excessive profits on their enterprise. On the whole we recommend that, on condition of the surrender by the Grand Trunk Company of their entire share capital, guaranteed, preferred, and ordinary, the trustees grant a certain annuity, charged as a working expense on the whole undertaking of the Dominion Railway Company, for the first seven years, increasing at the termination of that period by something like 40 or 50 per cent. We have left the figures blank as there will be questions of cash in hand, value of stores, etc., which must make the precise figure subject to negotiation, but our meaning is that the first figure should be a moderate but substantial percentage of $3,600,000.
The Government, in the agreement consummated with the Grand Trunk, takes a moderate though substantial portion, of that sum,, $2,500,000. The Government then agrees to ,pay that, or the equivalent of that, to the holders of the guaranteed stock of the Grand Trunk and the -arbitration value, if there is any value, in the first, second and third preference and common stocks of the railway. Is that not carrying out the Drayton-Acworth report?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly not.


George Brecken Nicholson: I appreciate very fully that the hon. member cannot understand that it is.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not happen to possess all the understanding in the universe. We cannot both have it.


George Brecken Nicholson: It is very reasonable to assume that the hon. gentleman- does not possess it all, but when he is leading a party in this House and taking the position that he is in regard to this question, he should give a little evidence of at least possessing a part of the wisdom of the universe.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
George Brecken Nicholson: There is not a word in it that says it is to be divided.
It says a substantial portion of $3,600,000 shall be given to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk. A substantial portion of

$3,600,000 is being given -to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk under this agreement.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the hon. gentleman would read section 42, at page 88 of the report, he would see the way in which it was to be divided.


George Brecken Nicholson: Simply to the shareholders.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And all the stocks mentioned.


Mr.   SPEAKEK@: Order.


George Brecken Nicholson: Will the hon. gentleman say that any stockholder of the Grand Trunk can share in any dividend or annuity before the holders of the guaranteed stock have received their full dividend?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am talking about what is in the report.


George Brecken Nicholson: The report says a substantial portion of $3,600,000. Before any holder of the first, second or third preference or common stock of the Grand Trunk can receive a cent, the holders of the guaranteed stock must receive their full four ,per cent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is left to the directors under section 42 of the report.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. These dialogues are very interesting and entertaining but they are not in order.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I regret if I have transgressed the rules of the House but I simply answered what was said by the leader of the Opposition in discussing the question this afterneon in regard t-o the fact that in his judgment, there was nothing in the Drayton-Acworth report which would justify the action now being taken by the Government or the agreement they have made. I hold that the Drayton-Acworth report justifies them in every single particular, and there has been no argument adduced in this House or from any source to show that the Drayton-Acworth report does not justify the action being taken by tihe, Government. Efforts Shave been made to distort the Dray-ton-Aoworth report and the position the Government has adopted in regard to the method for taking over the Grand Trunk and in regard to what may happen in the arbitration.
Now I come to one final point in reference to what was said by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston), that he is in favour of the government ownership

of railways provided it is carried out on an equitable basis.
From the beginning of this debate, and from the beginning of the discussion in the press, up to the present moment, has any hon. gentleman heard a suggestion as to any possible alternative to taking over the Grand Trunk Railway Company and merging it with the national system under the plan which is now being put forward by the Government?


Lucien Cannon: What about the liquidation of the Grand Trunk railway?


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. gentleman suggests liquidation. He would force into liquidation all the companies that comprise the Grand Trunk system and put them into the hands of a receiver. Does any hon. member say that it would be possible to put all these forty or fifty companies into the hands of a receiver at one time, and for the Canadian Government to purchase them through the receivership- would it be possible?


Lucien Cannon: We adopted that method last year in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Georges Henri Boivin: Once more I must remind hon. members that the House is not in committee and questions and answers across the floor of the House are not in order.


Lucien Cannon: I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member was putting a question to the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon.
gentleman was absolutely out of order in doing so and no hon. member has the right to answer the question.


George Brecken Nicholson: It is unnecessary to argue the point because hon. members know when they advance the argument that by putting the Grand Trunk system-a system made up of a group of companies-into receivership it would be utterly impossible to acquire that system as one complete unit.


Lucien Cannon: Why so?


George Brecken Nicholson: For the simple reason that parts of that system-as the hon. member knows full well-are so desirable to other railway systems, not only in Canada but in .the United States, that the competitive price that would have to be paid for them would be of such a character that the Canadian Government could not acquire them; and the only value of
the Grand Trunk to the Canadian people is in order to meet a condition with regard to the Canadian National railway that was contemplated when the latter was brought into existence. As I have stated a good many times on the floor of this House-perhaps too many times- it is amazing that hon. members who profess to be desirous of seeing the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific made a success can stand up in this House and say they do not want to see these systems linked up with the parent company whose existence was the excuse for their construction. The only reason for the construction of the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific was because the Grand Trunk Railway wanted an outlet into western Canada, and without the Grand Trunk railway-or some other system of equal mileage and serving an equal part of the country-the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific are an utter and hopeless impossibility from a railway standpoint. They cannot be operated without tremendous loss. We are involved in tremendous loss under the operation of them now, and so far no man anywhere has been able to suggest a possible means by which they can be operated unless they are linked up with the feeding systems both East and West.


Lucien Cannon: If the operation of these
railroads is so hopeless as the hon. gentleman has just remarked, what means can be brought forward by the Government to improve the management and make of these failures a success?


George Brecken Nicholson: I will give the hon. member the credit of possessing sufficient ability to enable him to understand how they can be made a success.


Lucien Cannon: I am open to conviction.


George Brecken Nicholson: The National Transcontinental and Grand Trunk railways can be made a success providing we can get traffic to haul over them, but we cannot get that traffic unless we have feeders for these lines. You cannot run a trunk line of railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific without feeders. What were the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental projected for; what was the idea behind the scheme? Leaving apart for the moment the question as to whether it is a good scheme or a bad one-a question that has been discussed with sufficient fullness from my standpoint-what was the object in constructing these railways? Was it not

as trunk lines for the Grand Trunk railway into western Canada? What justification was pleaded before the Canadian people for it? Why did the late Charles M. Hays link up the Grand Trunk Pacific proposal with the National Transcontinental if it was not to become a part of the. Grand Trunk Railway system? Hon. members know perfectly well that the whole thing was intended to be part of the completed Grand Trunk Railway system. And yet, now that we have the bare bones and the trunk lines, they wish to have the people of the -country believe we should leave the feeding system that can gather up the desired traffic and turn it over to some other competing railway and leave those lines in their present hopeless and impossible situation. It is needless to labour the question; it is not necessary to study it from the standpoint of a railway man at all; any hon. member knows perfectly well that the Transcontinental cannot be operated by any such method, nor can any other railway. Strip the Canadian Pacific of its branch lines from one end of this country to the other, and what would happen to it? Or turn the traffic gathered on its branch lines to another competing company, and what would happen to it? Could it be operated successfully? What makes the operation of it possible? Surely the gathering system it has from one end of the country to the other; and the Drayton-Acworth report sets out clearly and with absolute definiteness the Grand Trunk as that gathering system in eastern Canada and the Canadian Northern as that gathering system in western Canada, and the two other lines referred to will be linked up with them.


Georges Parent: Is the hon. member not of the opinion that with the linking up of these railways to which he refers the traffic from the West would be diverted to American ports to the detriment of Canadian ports?


George Brecken Nicholson: My judgment is just the reverse. My judgment is that by the linking up of these railway systems into one complete system, and by the establishment of a Canadian-owned fleet of -steamships on the Atlantic ocean, the traffic will go through Canadian ports.


Lucien Cannon: What about Portland?


George Brecken Nicholson: Whether my opinion is justified or not, would the position he any different to-day by the linking up of these systems from what it was when the systems were projected? The Grand

Trunk is running to the same ports now that it was then. What was the object of sending the National Transcontinental to Moncton and to the Atlantic seaboard? Was it not to give the Grand Trunk an outlet to a Canadian port? Well, if that object could not be fulfilled by linking the Grand Trunk up with the National Transcontinental and with the Intercolonial, how is it possible to accomplish it under the original agreement? Because what is being done under this agreement is simply to carry out the original agreement and link the two systems up into one line. And let me say again, whether the original scheme was a good scheme or not, has no bearing on this question -whatever; this is the only possible scheme for making the operation of these railways a success, and without it-


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member has been interrupted quite often and I do not wish to be unfair to him, but perhaps he will permit me to put one question. In his judgment, is it possible to operate the Grand Trunk with profit and with advantage without using Portland as a terminal?


George Brecken Nicholson: That has nothing whatever to do with the operation of the Grand Trunk as a part of the Canadian National Railway system. The Grand Trunk is an international system. It gathers a tremendous amount of freight in the United States which is destined for Europe. Very frequently that traffic is hauled through Canada, and that results in the distribution of money throughout Canada. In fact, the freight goes to its destination through the port that the shipper decides it shall be routed through. Because traffic is gathered throughout the western States and routed over the Grand Trunk to Portland, it does not follow that traffic gathered in western Canada cannot be routed over the Grand Trunk and the National Transcontinental to a Canadian port and carried on Canadian vessels to its destination in Europe. The two things are perfectly feasible. The Canadian Pacific has outlets in United States as well as in 'Canada; it is not, for that reason, operating to the detriment of Canada. It is no detriment to Canada that passenger trains from the western States should run over the -Canadian Pacific to Montreal and down to Boston and New York; it is no detriment to Canada that bonded freight should be following 'the same course. And it will not be a detriment to Canada or the Canadian National railways if the same thing be done in the case of our government-

,owned roads. It is perfectly legitimate business, and it makes possible the operation of the Grand Trunk as. part of the Canadian National Railway system for the carrying of Canadian traffic to Canadian ports.
The member for Chateauguay and Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) this afternoon challenged 'the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) with regard to the possibility of eliminating lines where duplications have taken place. Where, he said, are those lines? Let us take one or two examples. One is the line from Toronto to Napanee, where the Grand Trunk and the Canadian National run side by side. The member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) this afternoon referred to the fact that you could throw a stone from the platform of one car to the platform of another car on a different line -in places where the National Transcontinental and Grand Trunk Pacific run through western Canada. Well, there are lines so close together in Ontario that you could almost step from one coach to another of trains running on parallel lines. Between Toronto and North Bay and between Sudbury Junction and Ottawa there is positive duplication.
i Mr. ROBB: (Does my hon. friend claim that two railways run on parallel lines between Toronto and North Bay? Let us have that clearly understood.
Mr. G. iB. NICHOLSON:	Not two, but
three roads, are operated between Toronto and North Bay, the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and the Grand Trunk. They are not running side by side; nevertheless these three systems are being operated between these points, and if the hon. member goes to North Bay and wants to go from there to Toronto he can travel on any one of these three railways. If he travels on the Grand Trunk, he will go down through Huntsville; if on the Canadian Pacific or Canadian National, he goes via Sudbury Junction.
Mr. ROiBB: Eighty miles out of his way.


George Brecken Nicholson: The more miles he goes out of his way, the greater the number of miles that cars of the Canadian National are unnecessarily hauled, the stronger the reason why we should unite these systems and get rid of unnecessary mileage.


James Alexander Robb: Does the hon. gentleman
*say now that if this proposal is adopted he is going to cut one or two of these three roads? Is that the statement?


George Brecken Nicholson: If this proposal goes through I do not expect to have anything to do with it. But if it does go through-and I believe it will; I believe that the hon. member in his heart of hearts believes it will go through as the only possible solution of this railway problem-I should say that the management operating such a system of railways as the Canadian National Railway system who would operate competitive trains between one point and another, such as between North Bay and Toronto, should be in a lunatic asylum, and the Canadian people from one end of the country to the other who permit that condition should be with them.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend stated a few moments ago that there were competing lines running direct between Toronto and North Bay. Then he changed his position and said that these lines circled around somewhat, and he admitted that in the case of one of the lines there was a deviation of eighty miles. Now, what I want to know is this: Would he cut off the trains running out by Parry Sound and around by Sudbury? Which of these lines is he going to eliminate and thus deprive the people of these different localities of railroad facilities?	[DOT]


George Brecken Nicholson: It is unnecessary to go into a discussion of details as to how the railway management are going to operate their lines. You do not find the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific operating competitive trains between given points either by a direct or by a devious route. I say that it is unnecessary to discuss even the possibility of the management of the Canadian National Railway system continuing the operation of trains under such conditions. I did not say that in the case mentioned there were direct competing parallel routes. There are three competitive routes between two points; one may be a devious route, but it is there just the same, and the duplication of lines is one of the things that has bedeviled the whole operation of railways in Canada. If we are ever going to make the thing a success, as I believe we can and will, this unnecessary competition must be eliminated.


Georges Parent: Which of these lines
would the hon. member eliminate?


George Brecken Nicholson: That is a matter for the management of the railways. If I were doing it I would run trains between given points by the most direct and economical route; that is the practical wav of

doing it. It is not a question of what road to eliminate; it is a question of eliminating unnecessary services. That is the point.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I am not familiar with the conditions between North Bay and Toronto, but is it not a fact that the three railways between these two points serve different territories although they begin and end at the same places? In Manitoba the Canadian Northern runs two lines between Portage la Prairie and Dauphin, but the two lines serve different territories.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is perfectly true so far as local traffic is concerned; what we are discussing now is through competitive traffic-through night trains with sleeping cars, for instance. No one is suggesting that lines be taken up or abandoned where they serve a local community; but it is necessary that these unnecessary trains be eliminated.
I have taken up more time than I had intended, but hon. members have appeared to enjoy asking me questions, and, to be candid, I have had no objection to answering them. But it all comes back to the point:	If hon.
members have discussed the question with any competent railway manager or officer in this country, they know that [DOT]these railways cannot be operated successfully and economically and made to pay unless they are all organized into one system. I care not what scheme you suggest, they must be brought into one system. The leader of the Opposition said that we could accomplish the same purpose by giving the Canadian National railways running rights over the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk running right over the Canadian National railways. Would there be any elimination of unnecessary expense in connection with that? Instead of that, there would be a further multiplication of the cost of operating. The Canadian National railways would have an organization operating its traffic over the Grand Trunk, and the Grand Trunk would have an organization operating its traffic over the Canadian National. The thing is utterly absurd. I asked the leader of the Opposition if he could point to a single instance where a plan of that kind was working successfully, and he was unable to do so, and the reason that he was unable to do so, I believe, was that there is not one in existence.


Lucien Cannon: Is it not a fact that there is such an arrangement in connection with the terminals in the city of Montreal and

also one in connection with the terminals in the city of Quebec?


George Brecken Nicholson: The operation of terminals through a terminal company and the operation of a railway system are two entirely different things. Since the hon. member has brought my attention to. this matter, there has been .in existence for a considerable number of years a plan by which the Intercolonial is running into Montreal and using the terminals of the Grand Trunk. Has any one who has investigated that condition come to the conclusion that it has been a favourable condition for the Intercolonial? Where was the interchange of traffic in connection with that? What happened as regards the Intercolonial? This arrangement was simply putting a millstone around the neck of the Intercolonial as regards its Montreal traffic, and it made it impossible for that railway to compete with other railways successfully.


Lucien Cannon: Is it not a fact that there existed an agreement whereby the Intercolonial had all the freight going eastward on Canadian soil brought into the city of Montreal by the Grand Trunk?	-


George Brecken Nicholson: Under terms suitable to the Grand Trunk, under an agreement that was put across, if you will allow me to use that term, on the Intercolonial railway-on the Government that was then responsible for the management of the Intercolonial-an agreement that has been beneficial to the Grand Trunk and wholly detrimental to the Intercolonial. That is the condition.


Lucien Cannon: If the hon. gentleman's argument is right, does it not show that private management is, therefore, superior to public ownership, because, as he says, the Grand Trunk, a private corporation, has "put across" an agreement on the'Intercolonial which is a public-owned corporation?


George Brecken Nicholson: That particular agreement shows conclusively that those responsible for making the agreement on the part of the Grand Trunk railway succeeded in driving with those who were then responsible for the management of the Intercolonial a bargain that was beneficial to the Grand Trunk but detrimental to the Intercolonial. This has nothing to do with the question of public ownership, and the question of public ownership is not being argued at the present moment. I am simply pointing out what is possible of accomplishment in

connection with the operation of these railways. They can be operated only by bringing them together under one system, and the agreement before the House provides for that absolutely along the lines laid down by the Drayton-Acworth report and in a manner that has not been challenged by any hon. member who has spoken on this question. I repeat again that, until some hon. member in this House or some of those outside the House who are attacking this agreement can find some alternative, some way by which the Dominion of Canada can get out from under the obligation with which it has been loaded, not by any one who is endeavouring to put this agreement through, and make it possible for these railways to operate-until they do that, they are simply playing politics and nothing more by attacking this agreement in the manner in which they have done.
On the motion of Mr. Robb, the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Calder for the adjournment of the House:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are we going on with this Bill on Monday?


James Alexander Calder: Yes, that will be the business on Monday, and if we have time we will proceed with the other business on the Order Paper, and possibly with the report of the Special Committee on Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is understood that the Bill that we are discussing to-night will be the first business on Monday?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Monday, November 3, 1919.