[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister) presented further Supplementary Estimates required for the public service for the year ending March 31, 1920, which were referred to Committee of Supply.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: With the consent of the House, I wish to read copies of communications which have passed between the Canadian Government and the British Government with reference to an announcement that was made at the International Labour Conference at Washington with respect to the attitude of Canada as to the composition of the Labour Council:
From the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor General.
London, August 21, 1919.
Please communicate following from Organizing Committee of International Labour Conference to your Government.
Article 393 of the Peace Treaty provides that of the twelve persons representing Governments on governing bodies of International Labour Office, eight shall be nominated by members of chief industrial importance and four by members selected by Government delegates of remaining members. Any questions as to who are eight members of chief industrial importance must be decided by Council of the League of Nations. Unless question of the eight members is settled before Washington conference remaining four members cannot be selected at conference, which would result in serious delay in constituting governing body and labour office. Organizing Committee have accordingly drawn up following list of nine states on information available though owing to war and formation of new states, statistics very uncertain and compilation of list difficult. Question of admitting Germany to the Labour Organization after the Washington conference will come before Conference in accordance with decision of Supreme Council of Allied Associated Powers. If admitted Germany will be entitled to seat on governing body and last-named state would lapse. If Germany not admitted last-named state will be included. List is as follows: United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Japan, Switzerland, Spain.
Committee respectfully suggest any objection should be communicated to Secretary, Organizing Committee, 53 Parliament Street, London, before September 10th. Objections will be referred to Council of League for decision before meeting of Conference. Fontain-President.
(Sgd.) Milner.
From the Governor General to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Ottawa, 9th September, 1919.
Your telegram August 21st. Please communi cate following to the Organizing Committee of the International Labour Conference:
The Government of Canada feel that some rule or standard should be laid down to govern the determination of the question of who are the members of Chief Industrial Importance. In the absence of such rule the Government feel that the claims of Canada to a place among the eight members of chief industrial importance should receive further consideration. Apart from the question whether for reasons not of an economic nature, Germany, a country with which at the present time peace has not been yet technically concluded, should be included in the list designated by the Organizing Committee, inquiry into the relative standing of Canada and the nine members named in tentative selection of the committee will, in the view of the Dominion Government, show that Canada, with respect to many important

aspects of resources and development, compares favourably with several of the chief industrial countries, and, if the comparison be restricted to countries of less industrial importance in the list tentatively designated, as, for instance, Spain and Switzerland, then the advantage to Canada is very marked.
Then follow the reasons for the formal statements, which I will not take up time by reading. I assume they will appear in Hansard:
Canada, in relation to the nine countries tentatively designated, stands first as regards (a) area, (b) railway mileage per ten thousand inhabitants, (c) telegraph mileage per ten thousand inhabitants; second as regards (a) poten. tial water power, (b) developed water power; third as regards total railway mileage; fifth as regards (a) total telegraph line mileage, (bl total exports; sixth as regards (a) pig iron production, (b) total telegraph mileage; seventh as regards (a) coal production, (b) total imports, (c) total foreign trade; eighth as regards population. In all Important respects here indicated Canada falls within the eight leading members taking moreover, frequently a high place. It should be added that the comparison in respect of foreign trade has been based on the figures for 1916, the last year for which the statistics of some of the other countries are available here. The figures for Canada for the two following years are as follows: For the year 1917.-Total imports, $845,356,306. Total exports, $1,179,211,100. Total external trade $2,024,567,406. For the year 1918-Total imports $962,543,746. Total exports $1,586,169, 792. Total external trade $2,548,713,538.
Lack of statistics prevents a more detailed comparison with the nine members named, hut a certain comparison of Canada with Spain and Switzerland m'ay be made on the basis of exports of manufactures, trades union membership, and estimated industrial population. Export figures for 1917 are available for both Spain and Canada. In that year the value of manufactures exported from Spain was $107,000,000, as compared to a value of $477,000,000 manufactures exported from Canada. The latest returns for Switzerland are for 1916 and show manufactures exported to the value of $363,000,000. Total trade union membership in Canada for 1918 is 248,000. Latest figures available for Switzerland 1916 show trades union membership of 88,000; Canada for that year showed 160,00'0 trades union membership. With respect to industrial population, Canada outranks Switzerland heavily in the agricultural, mining, fishing, and transportation classes, and more than doubles the strength of Switzerland with respect to numbers engaged in (a) government and professional, (b) domestic and personal classes; also considerably surpasses Switzerland in numbers of workers engaged In manufactures and trade.
In these circumstances the Government of Canada feels justified in pressing the claims of Canada to a place within the eight members of Chief Industrial Importance whether Germany is counted or not.
Full details and statistics under the various heads enumerated above will follow by mail.
(Sgd.) Devonshire.
From the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor General.
London, 11th October, 1919.
My telegram 21st August organizing Committee
[Sir George Foster.!
International Labour Conference states that objections to proposed list of States of chief industrial importance have been received from Governments of Canada, India, Poland and Sweden and that question has been now submitted1 to Council of League of Nations for decision in accordance with Article 393 of Peace Treaty with Germany. Text of memorandum communicated iby organizing committee to Secretariat of League follows by post.
(Sgd.) Milner.
Mr. (SPEAKER:	Is it the desire of the
right hon. gentleman that these documents should toe printed in Hansard?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is, of course, only in exceptional cases that documents may be printed in Hansard without having been read. I assume this is one of those cases and I would therefore ask the House to give unanimous consent to that course being followed.
The House gave unanimous consent.



GUELPH NOVITIATE ENQUIRY.


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Secretary of State):: I have the honour to lay upon the table of the House the report of the Guelph Novitiate investigation.
Sir George Foster moved, with the consent of the House, that one thousand copies of the report be printed, 750 in English and 250 in French, and that Rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.	.
Sir 1SA1M HUGHES:	And the evidence
also?


George Green Foster: The evidence
goes to the Committee on Printing to toe dealt with in due course.
Mr. iSPEAKER:	This motion can only
be entertained by unanimous consent.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I desire to ask if
the evidence taken is to be printed as well as the report?
Sir GlORGE FOSTER: The motion is simply to print the report. The matter of printing the evidence-that is as to the number of copies to be printed-goes to the Committee on Printing.


Samuel Hughes: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that so far as I am concerned the only thing of any value in connection with this matter is the evidence, and the only thing that is interesting to the country is the evidence. The commissioners who were appointed to inquire into this matter were appointed merely as hearers of evidence;

their opinion counts for nothing one way or the other any more than the opinion of the millions of-intelligent men scattered throughout the length and breadth of Canada.
Mr. MoMASTER: Louder.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. member want me to shout so that I may be heard as far as Assiniboia? My object, Mr. Speaker, in rising is to urge the printing of the evidence; the report, so far as I am concerned, is absolutely valueless. I would suggest that the Government reconsider its decision and have the evidence printed as well as the report.


George Green Foster: I undertake that the matter will be brought at once to the attention of the Printing Committee, and they will deal with it.


Samuel Hughes: Why not let the
whole thing go to the Printing Committee?


George Green Foster: It has been usual in presenting reports to have the report printed, and the usual motion is the one which I have presented to the House.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: Personally I do not think that sufficient interest is taken in this matter to justify the printing even of the number of copies that my right hon. friend has proposed. In view of the discovery as to the financial condition of the country outlined in a report which has been submitted by a committee of which the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) was chairman, I think it is a scandalous waste of money to print any such report as this.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As no notice has been
given, this motion, of course, cannot be entertained without unanimous consent. Do I understand that any hon. members object to the motion?


Charles Murphy: I do.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Motion stands.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are marked with asterisks).

Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: 1.	Was it the intention of Parliament, when passing the resolution dealing with the question of titles of honour and titular distinctions that it would cancel all recommendations which had been made prior to the passing of the same, in regard to officers serving in Canada?
2.	Since the passing of the resolution by Parliament have not titles of honour and titular
distinctions been conferred upon Canadians on the recommendation of the overseas authorities?
3.	Is it true that the resolution of Parliament has resulted in no recognition being given to officers who throughout the war have served in Canada with credit and distinction?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	The resolution speaks for itself.
2.	No.
3.	This is a matter of conjecture.


SIR HORMISDAS LAPORTE.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is Sir Hormisdas Laporte still in the employment of the Government?
2.	Does he still live at the Chateau Laurier?
3.	What are his functions?
4.	Is he receiving a salary from the Government?
5.	Is the Government paying his board' at the Chateau Laurier? If so, when was he employed by the Government?
6.	How much has the Government paid for his travelling expenses to date?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Sir Hormisdas Laporte is Chairman of the War Purchasing Commission and gives his time without remuneration.
2.	Yes, when in Ottawa.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	From April 27, 1915, to October 1, 1919, $1,437.10.
The correct answer to question No. 2 might also be "No," as Sir Hormisdas Laporte actually lives in Montreal.
With respect to question No. 5, he is entitled to a living allowance of $10 a day while actually engaged in the work of the commission. Sir Hormisdas hasi been a member of the commission since April, 1915, but has only claimed living allowance for days actually spent in Ottawa.


SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysc borough):: 1.	What is the date of the last shipbuilding contract entered into by the Government?
2.	What is (a) the name of the contractor; (b) tonnage; (c) cost per ton; and (d) date of delivery?
3.	How many vessels have been ordered to date?
4.	How many have been delivered?
5.	What is the average cost per dead weight ton of all vessels contracted for?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	September 30, 1919.
2.	(a) Canadian Vickers, Ltd. (b) 33,400
tons, (e) $170. (d) One ship on each of the following dates:	June 15, 1920; July 31,
1920; October 15, 1920; and November' 1, 1920.


FOREIGN ORDERS FOR CANADIAN GOODS.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: What is the amount in value of the foreign orders for Canadian goods placed by the Canadian Trade Commission in London, eliminating all goods, the purchase of which has been guaranteed or financed by the Canadian Government?


George Green Foster: Statistics are available in respect of all contracts brought about and to lie carried out under the credits which have been granted. As to other orders, the mission simply performs the function of bringing the producer and the seller together; no definite statistics are available as to those transactions.


R C R -PERMANENT FRENCH CANADIAN UNIT.
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Does the Government intend to organize in various parts of the country permanent units of the R.C.R. ?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government, amongst other reasons, the special one of keeping alive the traditions of the 22nd French Canadian regiment, to organize in the city of Quebec a permanent French Canadian unit of the R.C.R. ?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes. The Royal Canadian Regiment is being recruited now.
2.	Under consideration.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	Who were the members of the Joint Committee of the House of Commons and Senate appointed to supervise construction of the Parliament buildings, and who is chairman?
2.	How many of said members have since ceased to be members of the Commons and how many by reason of absence or otherwise cannot act thereon?
3.	What are the powers of the said committee?
4.	Has the said committee made any and, if so how many, reports to Parliament?
5.	Is the said work being done by contract or by day labour or how otherwise?
6.	What is the cost to 'date of the said buildings?
7.	Who has actual charge or oversight of said construction and on what basis is he paid?
8.	When will the said buildings be ready for occupation by Parliament?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	The committee originally appointed was composed as follows: Hon. Robert

Rogers, chairman; Hon. Messrs . J. D. Hazen, J. D. Reid, P. E. Blondin, Sir James Lougheed, William Pugsley, R. Lemieux,
0.	Murphy and R. Watson.
2.	The committee at present is composed as follows: Hon. Arthur L. Sifton, chairman; Hon. Messrs. J. D. Reid, 0. C. Bal-lantyne, J. A. Calder, Sir James Lougheed, G. D. Robertson and R. Watson.
3.	To supervise and direct the reconstruction of the Parliament Buildings.
4.	Full reports of the work of the committee were submitted to Parliament by the Minister of Public Works for the fiscal years 1915-16, 1916-17 and 1917-18; the report for 1918-19 now in the press.
5.	By force contract.
6.	Total expenditure to 31st October, 1919, $6,101,947.67.
7.	J. A. Pearson is the architect having direction and control of the work. J. O. Marchand is associate architect. The architects employ, pay their own staff and other assistance, and are paid a commission of five and one-half per cent (51%) on an estimated cost limited to five million dollars ($5,000,000).
8.	Every effort is being made to make the building temporarily habitable for the next session.


WAR TROPHIES.
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the Government appointed a commission to deal with the distribution of war trophies?
2.	If so, who is the chairman of the commission?
3.	Has such commission been organized and has it made any distribution of trophies to date? If so, what distribution has been made?
4.	Have any requests been received from Vancouver? If so, what distribution has been made of war trophies in that city?
5.	What system of distribution is being adopted?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Sir Edmund B. Walker.
3.	The commission has been organized. No distribution of trophies has been made, and none will be made until all of them are received from England.
4.	Yes. No distribution has been made.
5.	No system has yet been adopted.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. McLEAN (Royal):: 1. What are the names, dates of appointment and permanent addresses of the officers appointed by the Militia Department to Number 7 District, New Brunswick, and departmental staff?

2.	What is the rank, pay and allowances, and overseas experience of each of the said officers?
3.	Is Military District No. 7 to be abolished?


SHORTAGE OF SUGAR IN THE PRAIRIE PROVINCES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. R. WILSON (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask -the Government whether they have been advised of the acute .shortage of sugar in the Prairie Provinces? I hold in my hand a letter which I have received from a wholesale firm in Saskatoon stating that there is a very acute shortage of sugar, and that great quantities are nevertheless being exported by Eastern refiners. Is it the intention of the Government, in view of this shortage, to place an embargo on the exportation of sugar?


George Green Foster: There is at present an embargo against the export of sugar from Canada. It has been operative for a number of weeks and is now being enforced as carefully as possible with a view to preventing leakage along the international boundary and otherwise. No permits are being issued for the export of sugar from Canada. Some export has of late taken place under contracts! made months ago, the non-fulfilment of which world have resulted in great loss and complication. These, however, are very largely cleaned off the slate, and the facts are as I have stated. I may announce also that cargoes of raw sugar are now coming into Vancouver. The shortage, therefore, which has been rather marked there for two or three months, will be relieved and from now on the British Columbia refiner will be able to ship normal quantities to the Prairie Provinces. With regard to the Prairie Provinces, I may say that they have received this year many millions of pounds up to the present time over and above the normal consumption of past years.


SHORTAGE OF NEWSPRINT PAPER.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (York, South):: I should like to call attention also to the fact that there is a great shortage of news print in this country, and that up to date nothing has been done to relieve it by way of embargo. The shortage is becoming almost unbearable.


George Green Foster: I will make inquiry. Is that shortage personal or general?
103*


William Findlay Maclean: It is very particular and very general. I never suffered so much; there is a condition of shortage-in every newspaper establishment in this-country.


George Green Foster: Well, you look happy.	.


William Findlay Maclean: I want to remain: happy, but I cannot if this newsprint shortage continues.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT'S OWNERSHIP OF RAILROADS IN UNITED STATES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: By way of asking a question, I desire to direct the attention of the Covernment to a despatch which was carried by the American press on- Friday last. Under the caption " Probe of Canadian Owned Roads Urged," the item is as follows:
Washington, Oct. 29.-A resolution calling on the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee to investigate present or prospective ownership by the Government of Canada of railroads in the United States was offered to-day by Senator McCormick of Illinois. McCormick also asked that a statement of the mileage of such roads be made.
May I inquire if the matter referred to in this despatch has come to the attention of the Government, or if the Government have any information to give the House to-day?


George Green Foster: The matter has not come to the attention of the Government. We have no information to give at the present time.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.
[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways) for the third reading of Bill No. 33, respecting the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway system, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Fielding, resumed from Friday, October 31.
Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I concur in- the opinion expressed by the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn) on Friday evening, when he said that this measure had been so thoroughly discussed in committee and on the second reading that it was almost impossible to advance any new arguments or reasons for or against it.
Fully realizing this, I feel that I would not be doing justice to my constituents

whom I have the honour to represent, if I did not take up a few moments of the time of the House in discussing the measure that is now before us. I do so more because during the discussion of this measure so far, I was, along with a number of other members, unable to attend the sittings of this House, being engaged on the work of an important committee that was sitting while the House was in session. Otherwise, I might, during the progress of the Bill through committee, have had an opportunity of discussing it more or less, and in that ease I would not have to take up the time of the House on the motion for the third reading.
It has often been said that it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose. I do not quite concur in that statement; but I feel it is the duty of an Opposition, when a measure of great importance is being considered by Parliament, to endeavour to elicit all information possible from the Government who are standing sponsors for the Bill, not only in order to enable themselves to consider properly the advisability of the acceptance or non-acceptance of the measure, but to give through Parliament an opportunity to the people of the country, who are interested in all Parliamentary measures and particularly , in this one, to consider wisely and carefully, after all the information has been gleaned from all sources possible, whether or not the measure is in the best interest of the country. While, during the progress of this measure until it has reached this stage, wre have, by questioning in committee, received at least some information of importance to Parliament and the country, some of the information that we have received reminds me of what I once heard one brother attorney say of another. Some one remarked that a certain attorney had a great fund of information, and the reply was: "Yes, he has a great fund of inaccurate law." While, during the course of this debate, we have had a great deal of information, both accurate and inaccurate, there is some information which we have not yet received and which the people of this country are demanding. I would first ask the Government if they have sufficient and proper information upon which 'they can reasonably ask this Parliament to endorse this measure and to assume the obligations that will have to be assumed if we take over the Grand Trunk Railway system, to be operated in future under governmental control. If they have that information, have they given all the information they have to this Parliament? Have we on this side of the
[(Mr. Copp. ]
House, have hon. members on the other side of the House who are supporting the Government all the information in the possession of the Government so as to enable us to decide whether we will assume the responsibility of putting this measure through Parliament? I think we all agree that unless it is shown absolutely and conclusively by the Government who are pressing this measure through the House that it is for the general advantage of the people of Canada, it should not he proceeded with. The responsibility for bringing before us all the reasons and giving satisfactory evidence rests entirely upon the shoulders of the Government who are now forcing this measure through Parliament. That leads me to inquire what reasons have really been given by the Government for the course which they are pursuing and which will place upon the people of the Dominion of Canada this added financial burden and responsibility. Some reasons have been given, I am prepared to admit, and one of the first reasons came quite early in the discussion of this proposition when the resolution upon which this Bill is founded was in committee. The Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid), who introduced the resolution and the Bill and who must assume the responsibility of bringing this measure before Parliament and of seeing it through, stated that he purposed laying all the facts before Parliament and asking a complete investigation and a thorough examination and discussion of all its details, and he wanted to be very frank and in all candour to lay the facts before Parliament. At the very outset of his remarks he gave a reason why this measure should be proceeded with, and as he continued with his address on that occasion, he gave a reason that I believe is the real reason why this measure is being brought before this House at the present time. As he stood there, surrounded by the officials of his department and other members of the Government, he made a statement to which I wish to refer if I may, and to my mind that was the first reason that was in his mind and that he gave to Parliament why this measure was being introduced and why the Government sought to have it adopted at the present time. I do not purpose reading the whole of his remarks; but speaking of the different bond issues and the guaranteed stock of the Grand Trunk system, he wound up by saying:
Surely it is to the advantage of the shareholders and debenture holders in England to be able from this time on, without any worry or anxiety, to know they will receive annual

dividends they have enjoyed for so many years in the past.
He made that statement, and he was about to let the proverbial cat out of the bag; the string was untied. But some of his prompters on his side seized his coat tail, and he pulled the string again and the bag was tied. That, however, was the statement made by the minister and expressed the feeling in his mind. He had in mind, not the people of this Dominion whose guardians and trustees the Government are, but the shareholders and others who have money invested in bonds and stocks of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Shortly after this, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) drew attention to the fact that, because of the action of the Government, the value of these stocks had been enhanced! in value on the London market at a probable cost to the people of this country of $25,000,000 to $30,000,000. When you come to consider and realize and figure that out, you will find that his statement was a very conservative one. What reply was made to -the remarks of my hon. friend? The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), who is not in his seat at present, arose and said: Oh, what difference does it make, if it does cost $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 or even one hundred -and twenty millions, to the people of Canada; these bonds and stocks are held by the people of old England, and a number of them by widows and orphans of the old land?


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend from Red
Deer and my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) who say " hear, hear,'' may dry their tears of compassion for the widows and orphans in England, for if an examination were made of the company's books we should find that the stocks and bonds which were held perhaps by widows and orphans in the old days have been sold on the market in the last few years owing to the stress of war, and have been snatched up at a low price by gamblers on the stock market *who are now unloading them on the Government. Have we no compassion for the widows and orphans of our own Canada? How many times during the war, and more particularly recently, have our widows and orphans and those who have been left dependent on account of the war been knocking at the doors of this Parliament for as* sistance? What has been the Government's reply to them? Nothing can be done, but the widows and orphans in Old England
must be given $120,000,000 to help them out of a difficulty, to use the language of my hon. friend from Red Deer.
Another reason in support of this legislation was given by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell). Referring again to Hansard, I find he used these words:
I say to my hon. friend that to suggest that we should liquidate the Grand Trunk Pacific and to ascertain, when it is liquidated, the amount of obligations, is to suggest that one of the crowning achievements of Sir Wilfrid Laurter's political career, as he always claimed, should he discredited and the railway sold on the market.
The thought came to my mind as I read that argument, that if by a miracle the stone could be rolled away from the tomb and the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier appear in the flesh he would be as much surprised as any hon. gentleman in this House at the President of the Privy Council trying in impassioned eloquence to perpetuate his memory and carry out the ideals he stood for in his lifetime. What would have been his views on this measure I cannot say, but during his lifetime, so far as I have been able to follow his career, he had but one aim both in business, in politics, and in his spiritual life, honesty and straightforwardness characterized him in all his business dealings. His whole political life was spent on behalf of the interests of the people of Canada, and in his spiritual life he followed the Light as he saw it. Therefore, I am inclined to think that if he were here to-day he would set himself four-square against this legislation, because I think he would see, as we see, that this Government is attempting to force through Parliament-legislation which is against the interests of the common people of the country.
Another reason why we should adopt this legislation was given by the Minister of Railways. I had not the opportunity of being present when he spoke, but I see by Hansard that he said- that the taking over of the Grand Trunk and incorporating it in the national system, of railways would be of advantage to the Intercolonial railway. Let us just examine that argument. If I understand the English language at all, it is the intention of the Government to form one great system of the Grand Trunk and its subsidiaries, together with the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Transcontinental and the Intercolonial. If that be so, of what-advantage will it- be to the people of Canada if the Intercolonial pays and the Grand Trunk does not pay, or whether any one unit of the system prospers at the
1G38

expense of the rest? It would simply be taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another. So the long and laboured argument of the Minister of Railways made the other evening on that point is without any foundation whatever. He also said that at present the Intercolonial is forced in winter to carry western Canadian traffic to the ocean ports of Halifax and St. John at a loss, because otherwise the Grand Trunk would carry that same freight to Portland at a lower rate. Now what must happen when the Government owns and operates the Grand ' Trunk? It will mean that freight from the West for the seaboard will be carried to Portland instead of to Halifax and St. John. What becomes, then, of the Government's boasted loyalty to the ports of Halifax and St. John, when freight that might have gone to those ports is diverted to Portland in the interests of the National Railway system? The freight will naturally take the shortest route, and will go to a foreign port in the winter instead of to St. John or Halifax.
Still another reason was given why we should take over the Grand Trunk. We were told that the credit of the Dominion would be adversely affected if the Grand Trunk was forced into liquidation. In reiply to that, I can only repeat what I said a few moments ago in regard to stocks and bonds held in England. Surely it is not necessary for the people of Canada to load themselves down with the liability the taking over of the Grand Trunk will involve, simply for the sake of maintaining the credit of Canada in the eyes of financial men in England. There might be some reason in that argument if the taking over of that road did not involve such huge liabilities, but those liabilities do not stop at a few hundred thousand dollars but run up into the hundreds of millions of dollars. In spite of that, the Government asks us to take over the Grand Trunk to maintain the credit of the Dominion in the eyes of the Mother Country.
Another reason given was that if we did not take over the Grand Trunk another great railway corporation in this country would take it over.
Much has been said in the course of this debate concerning the attitude of the Canadian Pacific railway. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary for me to affirm that I hold no brief whatever for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I know nothing about their intentions or beliefs, but I am constrained to say that while the Grand Trunk Railway system has been in financial difficulties for some years, until

now I have heard nothing of any attempt on the part of the Canadian Pacific railway to open negotiations with a view to securing control of that system. We have some evidence in support of this assertion. I grant you it is not absolutely unquestionable evidence, because we are all doubting Thomases to a certain extent and cannot always credit everything we hear and read. But we have the very direct and emphatic statement made, by the president of the Canadian Pacific railway a few nights ago in Montreal, when he was speaking in furtherance of the Victory Loan campaign. He informed the people of this country that the great Canadian Pacific railway had never contemplated or considered the possibility of attempting to acquire the Grand Trunk, which wrnuld be of no advantage to the system of which he was the president. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, knowing what little I do of that great corporation and the officers who direct its affairs, I should be inclined to think that they would rather do as they are doing now, namely, buying Victory Bonds at five and a half per cent interest from the Government and taking the securities of the Dominion of Canada and loaning the money to the Government to carry on this railway enterprise that they are putting through this House to-day. The manage'-ment of that great concern realize that it is far better for them, from the money-making standpoint, to operate their road in competition with the world, and when they make their money to hand it over to the Government and take Canada's securities bearing interest at five and a half per cent. I think, Sir, that my hon. friends opposite are merely putting up straw men and knocking them down with considerable ado when they attempt to introduce the Canadian Pacific railway into the discussion of this subject, and to express altogether unwarranted fears . that that great corporation will take over the Grand Trunk to the detriment of the country. The question whether or not the Canadian Pacific Railway Company requires this road is one that does not in the least perturb me, and I do not believe that the people of the country have any fear that they would attempt to acquire it. The only tangible and serious reason that the Government have advanced for taking over the road is that of necessity. They say that it is essential to acquire the road in order to complete their transcontinental sytem so that the system may be of the highest advantage to the people. I do not know just all the connections the Grand Trunk Rail-

way system has, nor have I any precise knowledge as to what advantage will accrue to the Transeoptinental system as a whole by reason of this undertaking. To be perfectly fair, however, I must admit that if any substantial benefit can be proved there is some argument in defence of the acquisition of the road. But we must consider all the surrounding facts in connection with the whole matter. The Grand Trunk Railway Company in 1903 entered into an arrangement with the Government of that day for the building of the Transcontinental railway divided into two parts -one was the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg West, and the other, the Transcontinental from Winnipeg East, having its terminus at Moncton. They entered that contract after very careful consideration and with their eyes wide open, and they must have realized the extent of the obligation they were undertaking. This work was carried on till 1911 when present Government took office. Shortly after the completion of the roads the Grand Trunk Railway Company at once threw up their hands and said they could not operate them. Now, if the Grand Trunk, with its experience of fifty or sixty years of railway operation in Canada, found themselves, with the Grand Trunk Pacific in the West and the Transcontinental in the East, unable to operate their system as a paying proposition, the question naturally forces itself upon us, how do the Government expect to take exactly the same lines and make them pay? If the Grand Trunk, with their wealth of railway experience, could not do it how will the Government do it? As a matter of fact, the company absolutely threw up the sponge and refused to attempt the operation of the road, and it strikes me that there is very flimsy ground for argument on the part of the Government that exactly the same railway system, with all its branches and terminals, which the (Grand Trunk found it utterly impossible to make a profitable enterprise, will be operated on a paying basis by the Government. Now, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that all the facts in connection with this proposition should be ascertained and made public, and before the country is pledged to this enormous undertaking it should be proved beyond the slightest possibility of doubt that the acquisition of the road will not only be a means of assisting the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental but that it will help to put the entire Government system of railways on a paying basis, and that as a result no incubus will be placed on the shoulders of the Canadian
people. That is the only fair ground for the Government to take in attempting to acquire this road. The railways should be made to pay and not create a deficit year after year. I venture the assertion that if not all, at least a large number of- hon. gentlemen supporting this measure do not fully realize the liability that we are assuming. We on this side have sought for information. I do not know what private information the Government have vouchsafed their followers, but from what I can gather from Hansard no two statements byministers have been identical in regard to the liability we are undertaking at this juncture and until we have absolute knowledge in that respect and know that this legislation will not impose a financial burden upon the country, then I say that it behooves every hon. member to vote circumspectly and not be led blindly to support this measure merely because it has been introduced by the Government. Surely we ought to know exactly what our obligation will be. But instead of getting that 'information. my hon. friends opposite are brought blindly to the standard oi the Government and will support this Bill whether it is a proper solution of our railway difficulties or not.
The question has been asked:	Why the
great haste? My hon. hon. friends opposite say there has been no haste, that this has been in the air for sometime; that the negotiations have been proceeding and that therefore there has been no haste. But that does not bear out the statement made by the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) the other night in reply to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) when he said that the reason why they wanted to put this Bill through this session was that if it were delayed the people of the country would become aroused. Why? I grant you there are occasions when the people become aroused unnecessarily and if they had not become aroused unnecessarily in 1917 hon. gentlemen would have not been in power to-day to force this measure through Parliament and to impose on the people this awful burden. But after all it is pretty safe to trust the people and instead of rushing this measure through Parliament in such great haste it would be well to allow this matter to rest and to let the people have an opportunity of considering it and realizing what their responsibility is. It would be well for them to realize that we are placing upon their shoulders a larger obligation than the country had prior to 1914. We are placing upon the shoulders of the people an added

debt of anywhere from $600,000,000 to $700, 000,000. My hon. friends say: We do not want the people to understand the situation or they will become aroused and their attitude will be changed if we wait until another session of Parliament. The people would become aroused and their feelings would be reflected in the votes of their representatives. Necessarily the Government are afraid to have the people speak as they should speak on this question as well as on many other great questions that come before this Parliament.
I said a few minutes ago that I believed there was a very large percentage of hon. members supporting this measure who did not realize, or know, what the liability of the people will be under the measure which they say they are loyally supporting on this occasion. I tried my best here one evening to get a statement with regard to that liability from the Government. I interrogated the President of the Privy Council who at that time had charge of the measure in committee. After he had beclouded this issue hour after hour, telling us about the guaranteed bonds, the preferred stock, the common stock, the guaranteed stock apd all the other kinds of stocks, I said to him: "If you were going to draw your cheque to pay all the liabilities that Canada is assuming under this measure, what would that cheque amount to?" He said "I cannot tell." Then he referred to the amount of stock that was to be arbitrated upon. I said "Leaving out of consideration altogether the amount of stock that must be left to arbitration under this agreement, what will the liability amount to?" He said "Then, there is a question of the $60,000,000; I cannot tell exactly; it may he large, or it may he small." I said "Give as nearly as you can what the exact liability will be," and he gave it. I took down the statement of the liability as given to me and it will be found in Hansard. The total, as given by the President of the Privy Council, amounted to $527,931,074.32. Now that is outside altogether of the $180,000,000 which is the par value of the stock that is to he arbitrated upon. What the result of that arbitration will be I cannot tell and my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council naturally could not tell. But the whole liability taking the $180,000,000 at par will amount to $707,931,074. Therefore I feel that I am well within the mark when I say that this liability and obligation which we are laying upon the shoulders of the people will at least be between $600,000,000 
and $700,000,000. Would the people of Canada, if they knew the facts, really support such a measure to place upon their shoulders an additional liability of between $600,000,000 and $700,000,000? I do not believe they would. Would they assume that debt for the satisfaction of enabling the Government to say "We own the greatest mileage of any railway corporation in the world?" They must realize that this enterprise has been a losing speculation from the very start. Before we undertake this new responsibility it is only fair that we should halt, consider and realize what it means to the country to place this additional burden upon the shoulders of the people.
The ex^Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), in the statement he made to this House when the resolution upon which this Bill was founded was in committee said: "We grant that this is a great liability but we must realize that it is only a marginal liability." That is a mere play upon words. The man in the street must understand it. Although this may be a marginal liability, it means that we must pay the interest for five years, now that the-Bill has been .amended, or in perpetuity on this whole amount. While it may be a marginal liability and we may never be called upon to pay more than the interest, (nevertheless the liability is there and the people must he responsible for the annual interest on this huge amount of money in addition to all other amounts to which we are obligated and eventually they must pay this amount out of the treasury of Canada to the Grand Trunk Railway system or whoever owns the stock and bonds when that payment is made. Our hon. friends say that they have based then-whole case, that they have drafted this Bill, are putting it through Parliament and are acquiring the Grand Trunk railway system, upon the recommendations contained in the Dxayton-Acworth report. If that is so, and if they are as particular in carrying out the terms of the report as they profess to be, immediately they secure control of the Grand Trunk they must expend $51,000,000 for betterments and improvements before the railway is in a position for successful operation. Let us look at that report for a moment. We will find1 on pages 33-34 a statement of the amount that must be expended for betterments and equipment and the commissioners wind up by saying:
Putting together revenue and capital expenditure, we find that the Grand Trunk railway, in

the opinion of its own officers, requires over $51,000,000 spent upon it to put it in a Position to meet the requirements of its to-day's business. We see no reason to expect that under existing conditions this neecssary money will be provided.
To put that road into a proper operating condition the Drayton-Ac-worth report s-ays that there must be an expenditure of $51,000,000
That at least is not a marginal liability; that money must be raised and taken out of the revenues of the Dominion and placed at once in betterments and improvements of that railway to bring it up- to the standard where it will make effective the very reasons given by the Government for taking the system over at the present time. Naturally, the next question one would ask is, what .are we getting for this liability we are assuming? In other words, what is the system really worth? There can be only one answer and that answer must be given in a straight businesslike way. The only straight businesslike way to find the worth of a railway is to take stock or an inventory of the physical assets of the road- the condition it is in and the state of the -cars, the engines, and all the equipment of that road; and upon a valuation of it find out what the assets of the road are worth. When that is ascertained, what is the next thing to do? What would any ordinary commonsense business man do if he wanted to purchase the Grand Trunk system? He would go with railway experts of recognized ability in whom he had confi-[DOT] dence and inquire into and put in black and white what the assets of this road were worth. Having done that, what would his next duty be? He would-if the company were indebted to him as they are indebted to the Dominion Government-take the company's liabilities, and everything on .which they must be responsible. He would then deduct those liabilities from the physical value of the enterprise and the balance would be the amount that was due to the Grand Trunk system. I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that has not been done, and until it is done you cannot get the proper value or the proper worth of this system. That is the only fair, reasonable and proper course to follow and that is what is suggested by the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding). We must have this information, and we must get it in a reasonable way, before wq, as members of this House, can honestly cast our vote in support of a measure such as this. I contend we have not at present that information upon which we can base a proper opinion and acting
upon that opinion cast our votes intelligently in this matter.
Having pointed out to the House the financial burden this transaction means to Canada and to the people who have to pay the taxes and meet the interest on this obligation, I am naturally brought to the question of the present financial situation in Canada. Hon. gentlemen have a pretty good general knowledge of what this financial situation is; but the people of the country have not the same general knowledge. The financial standing and the debt of Canada, and the obligations this country has to meet have been discussed many times in this House and in the press, but it is only discussion after all. To-day, we are fortunately in a different position, and for the first time,, so far as I have been able to gather, we have an authoritative statement of Canada's financial situation made-not by a member of Parliament merely, not by any politician, not made by a Minister of Finance who politely glosses over some of the Government's	shortcomings-but	made
under oath as to what our financial burdens are at the present time. The Chairman of a Special Committee that has been sitting for the last four or five weeks thought it the proper thing, in reaching findings and coming to conclusions regarding the matter submitted to that committee, to have a financial statement presented and he called the ex-Finance Minister as a witness. That hon. gentleman came there and made his statement under oath. He told us that the gross debt'of the Dominion was far above $2,500,000,000. He estimated what the assets were and placed them against the gross debt and then told us that the net debt of the Dominion a few months ago was $1,950,000,000. He also told us that we were indebted to the banks to-day to the amount of $225,000,000 on short term notes; and that the sum of $300,000,000 expected to be derived from the Victory Loan, now being floated would be practically all used and would go to pay our present short term indebtedness to the Canadian banks. The ex-Minister of Finance went further: he told us that between now and the 31st <of March, 1921, the Domiilion would be forced to borrow for capital expenditure alone, outside of the ordinary revenues required to meet ordinary expenditure, a sum of at least $800,000,000. That, Sir, would bring the gross debt of Canada-taking the hon. gentleman's own figures, and provided they are not swollen by larger amounts, which I am forced to

believe will be the case-on 31st March, 1921, to $2,750,000,000. Now, just as an illustration and a comparison, let us go back to the year 1914. Our net debt then was about $350,000,000 but it has since been increased to $2,400,000,000. Deducting the available assets it shows we have increased the public debt of Canada in six years by $400,000,000 per year, or over a million dollars per day. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite, and those who are responsible for this measure, lightly talk about assuming an added burden of $700,000,000 and treat it as lightly as though it were -only 700,000 cents. I may be over-pessimistic but I realize what this awful burden upon the people of Canada means, and I protest sincerely and in the strongest manner possible against this Parliament adding to the present financial obligations of the Dominion a further sum of seven or *eight hundred million dollars to satisfy a few gentlemen who are ambitious to unload their stock and obligations upon the people of this country in the interest of the English stock and bondholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
I want to refer for a moment to the question of public ownership. A great deal has been said during the course of this debate about public ownership and private ownership. I gather from the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite that they wish to place upon members of this side of the House the responsibility of being opposed to public ownership. Well, Sir, if the question of public ownership was involved in this issue I would be very glad to grapple with it and to take what I believed to be a proper stand upon it, just as I take what I believe to be a proper stand on the question now before the House. But there are two kinds of public ownership and of private ownership. There is a vast difference between the public ownership and operation of a tram line, an electric light plant or a telephone system in a city, town, village or municipality, and . the public ownership and operation of a transcontinental railway with twenty-two thousand miles of rails and thousands upon thousands of employees. I contend that the operation of railways by the Government has not proved successful. I regret to have to say that, Sir, because I have always been in favour of the operation of the Intercolonial railway as a government-owned system. At the time of Confederation it was promised to the people of the Maritime Provinces that we should have this railway and that it should be owned and operated by the Government in the interests of the people of
tMr. Copp ]
that part of the country. But I am bound to say that during all this time the Intercolonial railway has not been so operated as to make it a paying proposition. True, in some years there have been fairly large surpluses, bub if we follow the railway statistics from the beginning of the operation of the road down to the present day we shall find that there have been more deficits than surpluses; moreover, no interest has been paid on the original capital expenditure involved in the building of the road. Who is to blame for that? The evidence that we have in connection with the Intercolonial is against government ownership of the Grand Trunk. We have had fifty years' experience in the government operation of the Intercolonial, under both forms of Government, Liberal and Conservative-yes, and we have had it under a Union Government, and God knows that the conditions have been worse under that Government than they ever were. One man said to me: "It was bad enough when we had a Tory Government or a Grit Government, but when you get the worst of both together, the common people have a mighty poor show." This combination, made up of bon. gentlemen, who, in their modesty, term themselves the very best of both parties, has failed to make the Intercolonial a success, and if I may be allowed to venture a prediction, Sir, we shall find that in the years to come they will make a greater failure of the operation of the system that they are now taking over and amalgamating u ith the railroads at present under Government ownership to make a transcontinental system. I say that they will meet with greater failure and that greater disadvantage to the people of Canada will be involved than was the case in connection with the operation of the Intercolonial.
Much has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite as to the responsibility for the present railway situation. I believe that no session of the House has passed since I first became a member of it without somebody saying that the Liberal party was responsible for this railway tangle. That assertion has been put forward many times during the progress of this debate, in strong and emphatic language. I do not propose to take up the time of the House in any attempt to refute these statements, but if I may be allowed I would like to refer to some remarks made in this House by the exMinister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) when he discussed this question. I think that the ansvrer which he gave to this argument is much better than any I could give.

Speaking of Canada's railway systems, lie said, Hansard, page 1111:
In the first place, I think every one in this House would be disposed to agree with the general proposition that Canada has been seriously over-built with respect to transcontinental railways. That is abundantly evident in the duplication of extensive and expensive lines which have been constructed during the past fifteen or more years. One has only to consider the situation from Winnipeg west t# the Pacific coast, or for that matter, from Toronto to Montreal in which three lines parallel each other /or great distances, almost within a stone's throw of each other, to reach the conclusion without doubt or hesitation that there has been most serious duplication in the construction of Canada's transcontinental railway systems. It is idle to inquire what political party, if any, is responsible for that state of affairs. It is also idle to inquire what share of responsibility should be borne by political parties, and I have said in this House before that a share of the blame, if blame is to be imputed, rests upon both political parties in this country.
The ex-Minister of Finance, who recently parted company with these same gentlemen who denounce members on this side and attempt to place upon them the blame and the responsibility in connection with the present railway situation, says that it is idle to talk in that way, because both political parties are equally to blame, if blame there be in regard to the overbuilding of railways and tire serious situation in which we find ourselves to-day.
I am not particularly familiar with the situation in regard to that part of the Transcontinental system known as the Grand Trunk Pacific, which extends from Winnipeg west. I am not here to say whether or not it was the proper thing for this country to build the Transcontinental railway; I do not know. But I do know this, Sir, that in the early part of the war, at the time when the United States remained a neutral country, we would have found it impossible to transport our troops, our ammunition and our munitions of war from the West through to the winter ports of Halifax and St. John had we not the Transcontinental railway to assist us in that great work.
If it cost $150,000,000, that amount was well expended in the assistance which it gave to the Government and the country in transporting troops and munitions during the first two or three years of the war.
May I be permitted for just a moment to refer to the effect that this propesition will have upon the ocean ports of the Maritime Provinces? I may be accused of being sectional, but I am prepared to accept that responsibility. We of the Maritime Provinces are possibly somewhat jealous of the few little favours that we have received
from the Government during the fifty years of Confederation. We have in the Maritime Provinces, two great natural ports in particular of which we are very proud and which we hope to maintain and develop as we believe they ought to be maintained and developed. A few evenings ago the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) referred to this matter, and the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) asked him a question in regard to the operation of this road and as to the effect it would have. The answer made by the Minister of Railways was that in the operation of this system we must get the very best railway operating men possible, it does not matter where they come from, and this railway must be operated along business lines without political or other interference. That being so, if this system is to be operated in a business way by business men, by railway operators of wide knowledge and experience, what conclusion must we arrive at? If I may be allowed to repeat the illustration again, if it is going to cost more to take freight originating in any portion of the western country and coming down to Montreal, to Halifax for shipment from that port than to Portland, what must the business railway operating men say? They will say: We cannot take it to Halifax, we we will take it to Portland because that is a shorter haul and the cost will be less. That being so, the ocean ports of the Maritime Provinces must necessarily lose a large volume of the business, and the money expended by the Government in the development of those ports to date must be to a large extent rendered unnecessary as they will not be used, and those ports will suffer as a consequence. I realize that the operation of this road through American territory must of necessity draw trade away from the ports of the Maritime Provinces, and we shall find our produce, our products and our ocean traffic going through foreign country channels by the operation of this road, according to the statement of my hon. friend.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), the other night in quite a heated discussion, referred to this matter, and he made some suggestions or insinuations as to what was prompting the Opposition in opposing this Bill. May I refer to Hansard, and I have been somewhat at a loss, in reading this, to understand just what the minister means? Personally, I do not desire to engage in acrimonious debate or to make suggestions or insinuations in reference to hon. gentlemen opposite; nor do I


William Findlay Maclean: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the House will bear with me for a short time while I address myself to the question at present under consideration, namely, the acquisition of the Grand Trunk railway by the Canadian Government, for the Canadian people, for the purpose of creating, in connection with the railways that we already have, a great national system of transportation. During the brief time that I shall occupy the attention of hon. members I shall speak from the standpoint of one who believes in the public ownership of railways, and I think that my position will be borne out by the indication of the times, for this is the age of democracy. While my hon. friend (Mr. Copp) is of the opinion that it is undemocratic to take over the railways, I am convinced that the trend of present public opinion in this great country, as indeed throughout the world, is that democracy is ready

to assert its conviction that there, is no way of satisfactorily handling the transportation problems of any country except from the [DOT] standpoint of national convenience and expediency. This position is being taken everywhere to-day, and in the Old 'Country this democratic tendency is shown in the fact that legislation is now before the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of establishing a great National Department of Transportation which will take over and control transportation not only by rail but also on the sea and in the air. This new department under the direction of Sir Eric Geddes has evidently caught the spirit of these democratic times and realized that it is absolutely essential in the interests of the Empire to bring the various means of transportation under public control. The people in the Mother Country are also in favour of public ownership. Labour is favourably disposed to the principle, and I have no doubt that the business interests will take the same attitude. The same is true of the United 'States. It is all very well to assert that experience of public ownership in the United States is against it, and that the government administration of the roads since the war has been expensive and unsuccessful. But it must be borne in mind that if it was expensive the fact was attributable directly to the war, and if the administration of the railways in the United States under government control has not been the success it ought to have been it is because the railway systems there were muddled and wrecked as a result of private control. In the United) States a proper policy has been outlined. In that country there is a body known as the Council of Agriculture, very much similar to the Council of Agriculture in western Canada, an organization which, by the way, is now established in Ontario. The Council of Agriculture, representing the farmers of the United States, at their last meeting in Washington, declared in favour of the public ownership of railways, and the great brotherhoods of the United States, who operate the railways, speaking from their experience, have gone on record in support of the principle. In our own country we have a Council of Agriculture, representing tlfe farmers of all Ganada, who will meet in the West probably within the next two weeks. I have no doubt that that council, representing the farmers, not only of the West, but of Ontario, will express themselves in accordance with the views of the grain growers of the West, in favour of public ownership. Another democratic reason why there should 
be public ownership in Canada is the fact that the people have paid for the railways over and over again. Their attitude is this: " If we found the money to pay for these railways, in God's name it is time that the people themselves ran the railways and not outside magnates." In other words, the feeling is that the railways ought to be operated in the interests of the people who pay for them. That is the new doctrine of democracy in this country, and it is the doctrine that is shaking Canada from one end to the other. It is what is at the bottom of the farmers' movement that we witnessed in Ontario the other day. The farmers feel that if they have paid for these railways they ought to have something to say in their management. They are the people who not only paid for the railways and will have to continue paying for them, but who helped to win the great war and make the world safe for democracy. They contend, and rightly so, that if they could shed their blood in order that the great principles of democracy might prevail on the face of the earth-and Canada did her noble share in this high duty-they should administer the affairs of these railways for which they have paid so much. And if it is possible under public ownership to counteract and obviate many of the mistakes that have been made under private ownership, it is their intention to endeavour to effect a remedy. Year after year the people have voted money in this Parliament for the support of one decrepit railway or another. They have given millions of dollars at a time, but the railways have not succeeded, and the people are convinced that they never will succeed, and they intend to see if something better cannot be done. This is the attitude of the people, and I am prepared to go on any platform whenever I have the opportunity and justify the propriety and efficacy of public ownership. Public ownership is being instituted throughout the world, and you cannot satisfactorily deal with transportation otherwise. Adequate transportation also demands more than railways, and we are building ships. England is taking full control of her ships, having created, as I said a moment ago, a great Department of Transportation. She is re-organizing the country and the Empire through the control of transportation in order to off-set to some degree German aggression which was made possible by State control not only of land but of sea transportation. It is palpable to every nation now that public ownership of transportation systems is not only democratic but highly essential in the

interests of the people. We have spent considerable sums of money in the past and enacted legislation for the regulation of our railways, and we must also give our attention to maritime transportation.
If we have not got control of transportation by sea, it must end in failure. All the advantages that we have gained hitherto by reason of building additional roads and by the making of loans to existing roads have been taken away from us by the excessive charges of the shipping monopoly that did control transportation before the war. There was no way out of the war, or to win the war or to succeed in the war. except by the national control of transportation. That was the lesson of the war. To win the war we had to have national control. For the reconstruction of the world and for the reconstruction of Canada to-day there is no other device open to us. If we are to achieve a proper reconstruction, we must have public ownership and public control of the transportation system of the country. That may be a broad proposition to lay down, but that is the line upon which the world is moving.
We have been told about transportation in the United States. It has been said that conditions are bad over theje and that the reason for the failure of the transportation system is that it is being managed as a public proposition. That is not so. If the railway administration of the United States is failing it is largely due to the men who had control of the railways in their hands. They used that control for purposes of exploitation; they used it for securing profits for their companies; they used it for speculation in Wall Street and all things of that kind. Those who are opposed to public ownership in the United States to-day are the Wall Street operators and the magnates who heretofore controlled these railways. Who is it that is demanding public ownership in the United States? The demand is coming from the people who have their money invested in the railways. They see that there is no hope for their investments hereafter unless the administration of the railways is taken away from those so-called railway magnates and from Wall Street and something more in the interest of the public is put in the place of speculation in railway stocks and contracts.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would the hon. gentleman advocate the public ownership of all means of production?


William Findlay Maclean: No, I will let the
hon. gentleman discuss that when he comes
to it. I am discussing a question that is now before the people of Canada. We are now faced with the railway question, it has been forced upon our consideration and that is the question that we have to deal with at the present moment. The question of production will come up later. We are here to deal with the question of transportation. We are compelled to do so by the condition of affairs that prevails. I am, not going into the question of which party is the more responsible for the condition that has arisen. In some way we have to deal with this condition and we have - to meet it if we can. In the United States, as I say, the people who are asking for public ownership are the people who have their money invested in the roads. True the men who operated the roads, the railway magnates and the Wall Street people-would like to see the old times back but the people of the United States, the people of Europe and all those who have these problems of reconstruction before them see no way out of the difficulty except by the public ownership of railways.
Then, I want to come to another point which I have referred to in this House before. People who are opposing public ownership, and a good many of them are connected with the press of Montreal which has been mentioned by the previous speakers, say that a democracy is not able to administer its railways. That is the charge that is being made against democracy-a democrary that has done the greatest thing that ever was done in the history of the world in connection with this war. It has made the world safe for democracy and yet we are told that the people who helped to win this war, who put all the money that has been put into the railways of this country, are not competent to administer these railways. I have every confidence in my fellow-countrymen and I believe that they will find a way, once we establish public ownership, to carry out the duty that the adoption of that principle involves. I hate to see newspapers, such as the papers in Montreal that have been quoted here to-day and have been quoted before, saying that the Canadian people are not fit to run their roads, that they are a corrupt people, that they will succumb to corruption. If there has been any corruption in the past in connection with the railways, it has come from the railways and not from the people. I repeat I have every confidence in my fellow-countrymen. I believe that through Parliament and through leadership they

will work out a system of public ownership that will inure to the advantage [DOT]of the country. The man who says that the people are not fit to manage their own railways is not worthy to claim any credit for this country or for what we have done in this war. What Canada did she did before all the other democracies of the world. Canada was the leading democracy that came to the lelief of the struggling people of the world against autocracy. We went over there, we did achieve something, and we did help to make democracy safe. We put our money into the struggle, we have come hack home now, we are undertaking the duty of reconstruction in this country and we believe that the public ownership and control of railways and of transportation by sea are necessary if we are to deal successfully with the problems now confronting us. Not only must a scheme of public ownership apply to the railways but to transportation by sea as well. Our whole effort in connection with transportation, whether by sea or land, must be consecrated to service and achievement and not to profit. The great difference between private and public ownership is that under public ownership all the resources of a country are devoted to service in regard to transportation and not to profits to individuals.
Then, the opponents of public ownership say that we are not only a corrupt people hut that we cannot get the best men to run a national system of railways. 1 repudiate that. We have men now and we are training men in Canada to run railways efficiently. The only thing to do is to give them an opportunity; Take politics out of the railways-and we are gradually doing it- and success will attend our efforts. We .are going to tell our young men what the privately owned companies have been telling their young men who have risen in their service, that if they give the best service they can to the people of Canada under public ownership they will go to the top. I repudiate this attack which is made by the opponents of public ownership who say that our railwaymen cannot run a publicly owned line. If this road is left to the men to administer the Grand Trunk they will make a success of it, if they are put in charge of it for the people and if they are not interfered with. In the past under private ownership they have been interfered with and they have been made to let unjustifiable contracts in connection with construction and supplies for the sake of [DOT]making profits for certain' people. Not
IMr. W. F. Maclean.]
only do our people believe in public ownership, but they believe that we have men in our own country who can run these roads and they have confidence that these men are prepared to give as good service to the country as they would be to a private company.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Now that the hon. gentleman is on his hobby perhaps it would do no harm to ask him a question.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it not a good thing to have a hobby? I wish my hon. friend had one; it would do him good.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is my hobby just now.


William Findlay Maclean: AH right.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is admitted, Mr. Speaker, that this year we will have a very heavy deficit-possibly $50,000,000 on the Government owned railways. How does the hon. member propose to get away from that condition of things and have a paying proposition?


William Findlay Maclean: I am trying to get away from the condition of things that the hon. gentleman and his friends helped to impose upon this country-a condition of things that has come to be a disgrace and a scandal to Canada. I ask the hon. gentleman to come into my constituency as I am willing to go into his, and be prepared to show that it was not the maladministration that went on in connection with our railways that created this deficit. But we are now going to stop these deficits, we are going to stop these scandals, and we are going to trust the Canadian people, not only to pay the obligations but to maintain and operate their railroads. I know it is a hard thing to show a way out of the trouble that has arisen-it is a hard problem that is put up to us-but what constructive scheme has my hon. friend to submit to get us out of the trouble? Has he any scheme to submit? Did the hon. gentleman, (Mr. Copp) who spoke for an hour and a half this afternoon substitute, an alternative proposition? I have not heard one, excepting this from the papers in -Montreal that were quoted here to-day: Give it to another private company; pay all the debt that has been created, give them another subsidy, and aggravate the evil that now exists-for it will only aggravate the evil. That is doctrine I have heard in the House today and that must come to an end. I do not want to pass reflections on hon. gentlemen opposite, because I could pass reflections with respect to mistakes that have

been made on this side of the House in connection with railways, there have been mistakes and they have been great; but they must end and the people of Canada say they must end. Never again will a dollar of money go through this House to private-owned railways to aggravate the condition of affairs that now exists.
I want to draw attention to another thing. Let us pass from democracy and let us come to something that prevails to-day and that is the question of the coal supply of this country. A great strike threatens in the United States, and that strike is based on what? The fact that the coal measures of the United States many years ago passed into the hands of private owners and into the hands of private railways, and coal has been made a monopoly in the United State -a monopoly in something that God gave the people for their fuel for all time to come. Now that awful monopoly in coal that exists between the coal owners and the coal railways in the United States has produced a condition in which the men who operate the railways are on strike to-day and ever since this war-[DOT]


Mr. McMASTER:: Does the hon. gentleman mean the operators of the railways or the operators of the coal mines?


William Findlay Maclean: The coal mines- and ever since the war began we have been in danger in respect to our coal supply in this country. At times we could not run our railways; and we had not fuel for our people; the railways had so run down that they could not transport the coal to the people. But there is a great relief in sight. Science has found something for us that so far has not been degraded. Many of the great discoveries in science have been utilized in the recent war for the destruction of humanity; but science has given us one thing and that is, it has discovered a way of converting the hydraulic energy of our rivers into a supply of power. If we have not coal and if we are dependent largely on the United States, especially here in the East, for the fuel to drive our railways, we have an unlimited supply of water-power in this country. We propose, in connection with the nationalization of our railways, to nationalize these water-powers, and by that alone to put transportation on its feet in Canada and make our country independent of the United States. The only way that we will ever have the use of these immense powers of electrical energy in Canada, especially for transportation, will be by the state taking control of them and developing the power. We have started that policy in the province of Ontario and we have had marvellous success in connection with the development of the power for the use of the farmers and the use of our factories, and the people there would not part with it now for anything. The people there are insisting, as I believe the people of Canada will insist, that in connection with transportation there must be electrification of the railways. Nobody can do it so well as the state can do it. The state can and ought to do both-produce power and make us independent of the United States and use that power for the transportation interests of the people of this Dominion. That is in the minds of the people of Canada. After their experience, after the knowledge they have gained, and after what they have suffered from the coal barons and the coal railways of the United States, they do not want to see the last great asset. we have got, our water powers, pass into the hands of private corporations, and not to be used as it ought to be used for the solution of our transportation problem. As I have said, the people of Ontario have got a certain distance in that direction, and they have achieved success. And now, when I come to speak of Montreal, I want to put myself straight. While I have condemned what seemed to be the Montreal attitude, I do not accept it as being the real view of the people of Montreal. But I do say that Montreal is the last refuge of the so-called railway magnates-magnates who want to maintain their ascendency and do not want to see the Grand Trunk pass into the hands of the people but remain under some kind of private ownership. Well, the people of the province of Quebec, as a whole, do not take that view. They want to see the great water-powers of the St. Lawrence used for the benefit of the railway transportation of Canada; and if it has got to be a question of creed and nationality it is all Englishspeaking exploiters who are at the head of this movement in Montreal. Those exploiters would like to keep the water-powers away from our railways and keep the Grand Trunk away from public ownership; they would like perhaps to give the Grand Trunk to the Canadian Pacific Railway company. The Canadian Pacific has had its opportunity, it has got its railways; it has had its immense votes from the people of Canada, it has got the use of the ports and harbours that were created for them. Let that company work out their own problems



as -well as they can; but let them not interfere with the Canadian people in their determination, in connection with this work of reconstruction to run their railways and to electrify those railways.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I ask a question?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, two.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would it be in the mind of the hon. gentleman that It would be wise to nationalize the Canadian Pacific also?	[DOT]


William Findlay Maclean: Some day. I am not afraid now to say, yes; bring it on, the sooner the better. The crime was that the Canadian Pacific Railway company, by the aid of this Parliament, so entrenched itself by -wiping out its bond issue and substituting therefor an immense stock capitalization of over $300,000,000, that it is almost an impossible thing to do as the hon. gentleman suggests. It cannot be said that I did not enter my protest against the Canadian Pacific Railway company in the past. And yet the Canadian Pacific is a well-administered railway and the Canadian Pacific organization, to my mind, would be the (best organization of all in this country to administer national railways, and there is not a man in the company who would not gladly work with the nation in connection with our railways. I do, however, object to the Canadian Pacific Railway company interfering in this matter, and they have interfered. I want to tell the Canadian Pacific, and the people, of Montreal, something, and it is this: there has been more Canadian money lost by speculation in Canadian Pacific stock than all our railroads have cost us in Canada. They have led' the Canadian people into that speculation, and they would like to get them back if they could. Millions and millions of Canadian money have been squandered in New York and here more or less, speculating in Canadian Pacific stock. While the company boasts of the great achievements of the Canadian Pacific and of the splendid service they have given the Canadian people, they have caused more losses to Canadians than' any other institution -we ever had here.
That road will be a real success only when it gets out of the hands of the magnates and stock dealers and is made a public proposition. The people of all Canada would be prepared, if we have the men who can combine these railways, to nationalize the whole system. But that is not quite the issue; the issue is what are we going to do with the Grand Trunk? How are we

going to get out of this scrape? Are we to put more money into this road? Are we to try to save it? By electrifying it, not only can we save it, but we can get rid of all this unnecessary duplication. There are thousands of miles of railway in this country which can be dispensed with or used to better purpose. It is absurd to see the railway passenger services that are carried on between certain cities in this country. We do not want this duplication. The defy after we take over the Grand Trunk the people of Canada will have the real national railway between Toronto and Ottawa, as well as the best service; it will consist of the Grand Trunk and the portion of the Canadian Northern that we now use. Moreover, we will have the greatest transcontinental railway system in Canada-the Intercolonial to Montreal, the Grand Trunk to Toronto, the Canadian Northern to within a short distance of Lake Nipigon, the Transcontinental to Winnipeg, thence onward via the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk, and perhaps via the Canadian Northern to Vancouver. I cannot commence to tell you what improvements can be made in Ontario by co-ordination and co-operation; and in many other ways great benefits will result from our taking over this system.
Hon. gentlemen have spoken about the enormity of the commitpients that Canada is making in taking over the Grand Trunk. Now, the House has not been told by these same gentlemen what we get when we make that commitment. Is the Grand Trunk worth nothing? The greatest railway property in America to-day that I know of, outside the Pennsylvania railway, is the Grand Trunk; the greatest assets that any railroad in Canada has are the assets of the Grand Trunk in Ontario, in Montreal and in the leading cities of our western country.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then why does it not
pay its way?


William Findlay Maclean: Because it has
been managed in England by stock speculators. Many of us in this House implored that the management of the Grand Trunk should be transferred to Canada; had that been done it would have had the same success as attended the operation of the Canadian Pacific. But there is a class of people who have had the Grand Trunk in their hands for over fifty years. I am not speaking now of the widows and orphans; I am speaking of those London stock operators, who, during all this time, have had the Grand Trunk in their toils. They have lived on it; and

1G51
the only description I can give of them is this: They are not looking for big profits, but they come very much within the definition of those who sweated the King's coinage in the old days. I remember reading the other day an account of some gypsies and others who made a livelihood by sweating the King's coinage. The idea was to take a guinea, treat it with aqua fortis and sweat a shilling out of it. That is what has been done with the Grand Trunk during the last fifty years; the London stock market has been sweating the Grand Trunk like these people who sweated the King's coinage. They have kept that road poor; they have kept these widows and orphans poor. The hon. member who preceded me was weeping for the widows and orphans instead of condemning the men who took advantage of them. There will be no more widows and orphans in this sense under public ownership of railways.
Mr. 0OPP: Does the hon. gentleman refer to me? Does he say that I wept for the widows and orphans?


William Findlay Maclean: Somebody was weeping for the widows and orphans. This is an age of weeping; they are all weeping for the widows and orphans. But the widows and orphans of this country who have paid for these railways do not own them to-day. What about the widows in my own county who have been paying taxes year after year for the support of the Grand* Trunk and the Canadian Northern? I am not going to -weep for them, but it is a fact that they have been sweated year after year to create railways that are not properly handled.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does not the hon, member think that the Government is being sweated right now?


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps it is. It has been sweated before, but it is not going to be sweated much longer; and if the hon. gentleman hopes to come in to be chief sweater of the people of this country he is making a'miscalculation.
The administration of the Grand Trunk shoujd have been in this country. The Grand Trunk is a splendid asset and when it is lined up with these other railways we shall get a better service and we shall get rid of all these unnecessary lines. But that will not come in a day. We shall have to spend more money, but we shall get something for it; we shall be building up an asset for the people. We have been building up assets for somebody else with our own money. We have given money; we have
104J
given lands; we have made harbour and river improvements. We have done many things with our money to build up these roads, but they have not given us service.
What is the proposal that has come from Montreal? So far as I can see, it is this: Give the Grand Trunk to a new company, or give it to the Canadian Pacific. We have given the Canadian Pacific enough. We can say to them:	"God be with you; go
on, but leave us alone and let us see what we can do with the wrecks that we have on our hands." They may be wrecks; yet they are ours; they come into our hands because of the money that we have put into them. And now when we propose to take them over, these two celebrated papers of Montreal express their opposition. There is my Lord Atholstan, who owns the Montreal Star and who is making such pleadings that the Grand Trunk be not interfered with. What is his record? He knows that this is an age of democracy; but what was his ambition in life? Was it to be a democrat in Canada, to grow up with the democracy of Canada? No; the only object of his life was to get into the House of Lords -and now that he is in it he cannot go to it. He believes in what? He believes in a chamber of privileges. He is satisfied to get into that great chamber of privilege- the House of Lords-which, by the way, has been democratized in a surprising manner, and if he went there he would come to a sudden awakening. He even thinks that in a chamber of privilege is to be found the only way of saving the Grand Trunk; he is appealing every day to some chamber of privilege in this country to save that system. Let him appeal to the democracy of Canada; let him appeal to this House. And what answer does he get here? The people of Canada, as represented in this House, are for public ownership, and I hope that hon. gentlemen opposite will get in line with it. They are democrats; I hope that they have the real spirit of democracy in them, and that they will listen to democracy; they will listen to the judgment of the people who are in favour of democratizing the railways of Canada.
If the Government will give a fair opportunity to its own railway men to link these lines together and to save money, I will give up my seat in this House at the next session if they do not succeed. Perhaps I am taking quite a risk in saying that; but I am willing to go to the people and ask them to pass judgment upon my attitude in regard to this question. I have talked it out with the people whom I represent; I have talked


it out with the people of Ontario. They are for public ownership not only in regard to water-powers but in regard to railway transportation, and transportation also as applied to shipbuilding.
We are being extensively sweated in order to have ships built in this country; but we are building them, and in a short time we shall have national railways and national transportation by sea, and our farmers will be in better touch with the consumers of Europe. What is the economic question? As I pointed out the other day, it is in some way to put the man who raises things into closer touch with the man who has to buy them, and in that way to reduce the spread. The spread that private ownership of transportation has made between the man who raises the wheat and the man in Europe who has to buy it, is something enormous. If you take away that spread, you can give a portion of it to the farmer and a portion to the man who consumes the wheat, and public ownership of our transportation facilities is the only way in which that can be accomplished.
In connection with these railways we have acquired a number of telegraph lines. We have acquired the Great North Western, and the Grand Trunk to-day has its telegraph service in connection with the Great North Western, and we have these telegraph offices throughout the country. For many years now we have been endeavouring to have national telegraphs. In Europe the people have national telegraphs and national telephones which are a great success and service to the people, and the rates do not go up as they do in this country they rather go down. Where you have public ownership, the rates tend to go down, and I cite the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission in proof of that statement. We have seen its rates go down in spite of the war. That is the example which we quote in regard to public ownership of transportation, and we are going even into a radial system in Ontario with the one object that, by having a publicly-owned service, we shall improve the service and reduce the cost.


Mr. ROBB:: How does the hon. member explain the fact that freight rates on the railways of Canada have advanced fifty per cent since the taking over of the Grand Trunk Pacific by the Government?


William Findlay Maclean: I will not undertake to explain that, and yet I will say this, that railway rates have increased because of maladministration of railways in

the past, because of the London control of the Grand Trunk and many other things, and because of the unnecessary lines that have to be maintained, the unnecessary operating heads, the unnecessary and idle cars and the handing out of contracts to friends of the management. Look at all the contracts that under private ownership go to friends of the management and out of which money is made at the expense of the freight rates. We must cut all that out.
I see on the Order Paper to-day a most enlightening question asked by an hon. member in regard to cables. Practically the worst mono-poly in the world is the cable monopoly, and the British Government, the Canadian Government and the Australian Government have tried to get ahead of it, but they have not been able to do so yet. The day, however, after we acquire the Grand Trunk we shall have in this country a splendid system of telegraph lines which will be national telegraphs-, and we shall endeavour to extend the lines and to give the public service at- the least possible'cost without making a great deal of money out of the operation. Not only are we going to have national control and ownership of transportation, but we are going to have national control and ownership of our water-powers in order to carry on our transportation, and of these telegraphs lines that have fallen into our hands. We are going to unify these telegraph lines, and perhaps we shall put them under* the Post Office Department. Throughout this country we have postmasters who are badly paid and who could be given' these telegraph offices to run. In that way we shall have in connection with our national railways a first-class national telegraph service. We stpeak about reactionary Europe, obscurantist Europe, and all that; but we and the United States are away behind Europe because the people of Europe realize that they must have national ownership of transportation, telegraphs, telephone and things of that'kind; they intend to have them, and they are being forced to go into that by force of circumstances just as we are. We must have public ownership of those things and we must run them. Hon. gentlemen may make all kinds of charges, but I can see how public opinion is going in this country. Many years ago I stood pp, one of a very few, in this House and declared myself in favour of public ownership, and I have seen many men come around to it as this Government has had to come around to it and as the exJVlinister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) and many others have had to come around to it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was it quite a conversion on his part?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not know whether it was a conversion or not. The hon. gentleman himself has experienced conversion, and I hope he is not going to bring into the issue the question whether he was properly converted or not. They have, however, been converted, and they have made the start. This development has come about gradually. As I said, when it first came up' in this House, it met with very little encouragement. I remember the night when a couple of friends of mine drafted a little resolution to put before the Ontario legislature declaring in favour of the nationalization of the water-powers of the Niagara river. It went through the House, and nothing was said of it, and for a year or two good old Sir James Whitney whom we all speak well of did not say much. But he came to see what it meant, and his everlasting monument amongst the people of Ontario to-day is his honesty, his devotion to the public welfare and his starting in public ownership in Ontario in connection with the Hydro Electric. That is his monument, and it will be a monument to the members in this House to-day who are putting through this proposition, to have public ownership of railways and of transportation by sea.
To come back to the cable question to which I referred; if there is to be worldwide reconstruction, we must get rid of this monopoly that controls the cables, and, as I said, I read with interest a question addressed to the Government to-day for some information in connection with this matter. The worst monopoly in the world outside of the coal monopoly has been this cal Tie monopoly; it has been entrenched in England, and many members of the various British Administrations have been directors of that cable company. One thing that has come home to our people is this, not only must we have the means of fighting it, even if we have to go to war again, but we must have control of transportation by way of railways and ships, and also telegraphs. That is the teaching of this -war; that is the lesson that this triumph of democracy has achieved in this great war. It is in the hearts of our people who see that there is a new world now; a revolution has partly taken place; another is impending, and if it is on the way, it is in the direction of democracy and democratic control of transportation and of some of the great resources-of the country. People may say: That is socialistic doctrine; but perhaps socialism
in some form or another is the way in which the regeneration of the world is to come about. In any event, there has not been a worse class in the community than those who think that we cannot run our railroads ourselves, and that they can run them for us if we will only give them enough money to do so. That is all finished now, and I can only say here in as plain words as I can, that the people of Canada are tired to-day of this continual and continuous voting of money to private railways, and they will not vote another dollar. They will not vote another dollar for the regeneration of the Grand Trunk to turn it over to the Canadian Pacific or any other private company. They say to the Canadian Pacific: Go on and do what you want to do and make your road a success. The Canadian Pacific have their opportunity; they are established, and they should not be afraid of this national railway. But it strikes me very much as if they were afraid of the competition of this national railway and of the new management of this national railway saying to the people of Canada:	Support
your own railway; support your own telegraph lines, and when you do that, you are helping yourself.
They do not like to see that coming about, and they are opposing it. I do not say hon. gentlemen opposite are siding with them, but I do regret that hon. gentlemen in criticising this proposition have not taken the opportunity of putting forward an alternative scheme of their own. If they have a scheme for dealing with these bankrupt roads that will win out and will not entail the spending of more money I should be prepared to listen to them, but I have studied this question as well as I could and have read much on it, and I can see no way except to take over the roads. Perhaps the question comes down to this: how much are you going to pay for it? The Government have tried to make an arrangement. There may be some extravagance; there may be advantage for somebody we do not know of, but even if that is so, it may be the best way out. We have to take things as they are, and we are going to close the record so far as these railways are concerned. We are going to take over these roads and run them as Canadian propositions. If anybody has a different scheme that will cure the evil let him bring it forward.
I give the Government some credit for the way they have framed this proposition, because it was a hard one to frame. The company at first apparently did not want to be taken over, but now I think the Grand Trunk are chasing the Government to get

the deal closed. They know the failures of the past and where they were getting to; they know the failure of their Transcontinental and Grand Trunk Pacific schemes; they know they have never paid back the money the people of Canada gave them in former days; they know the administration of a great railway in Canada from England is not a success. Hereafter the administration of this railway is to be by Canadian railroad men. The road is to be taken out of politics and all extravagances removed, and when this is done you will find the people of Canada, -when they have to vote on this question, justify any government that has put a stop to the condition that prevailed in the past and which has tried for something new. I have studied with some care the revolution that has come in the province of Ontario within the last few days, and it is very significant. The people are very tired of a great many things.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: "Hear, hear"
goes a very long way. The people are in a state of unrest, and are tired of giving public money to private concerns to run railroads; they were running them into the ground, that is where they were getting to. The people are going to stop it, and stop it for good. They are going to trust their own people, even this Parliament, to administer the roads. I believe we have the men to run these roads, and that our public men, whichever party they belong to, will be equal to their responsibilities in bringing down legislation to make these roads public property. From the day the change is made I venture to predict there will be a great response and recognition in the province of Ontario, because of this stopping of unnecessary waste, and the getting rid of unnecessary duplicate lines, and driving these railways that the people own with public power, public owned and generated from the rivers of this country. The people will not let these water powers get out of public control hereafter, but will use them for driving our railways not only in Quebec and Ontario but clear across the continent. We have not got coal between here and Winnipeg, but we have a splendid lot of rivers running into Hudson Bay which can run every car between Ontario and Manitoba, and the Saskatchewan river and other great, rivers of the West will generate power for running the railroads there. There is a new era of transportation coming in this country, and we are recognizing the new opportunity and the new duty, and especially the new duty of the recon-

struction of our country. It is the greatest task that those of us who sit in this Parliament will ever see any parliament, confronted with for many and many a day. There is only one way you can start, reconstruction right, and that is by public ownership and control of the system of transportation of Canada. We are taking a step here to-day which, notwithstanding any defects the arrangement may have, is in the right direction and in the interests of the people, and that is why I am going to vote for the proposals of the Government.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): With much of what the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has said I shall not quarrel, but I must take issue with him on the system of purchase of the Grand Trunk system. In the first place it would seem to me to be only good business to ascertain the amount of liabilities that we are taking over and what the assets are worth. That seems to be the common sense thing to do. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) told us a few days ago (Hansard, page 1064) that the total obligations of the system amounted to $537,940,000, to which should be added Grand Trunk Pacific current liabilities of $12,100,000, because we are also taking that road over. That makes a total of $540,000,000. Then I find .from the figures furnished by the Government that the current liabilities of the Grand Trunk amount to $22,801,000, which with the current liabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific amounting to $12,100,000, notes unsecured $3,916,000, and an annual deficit of $12,000,000 makes a total of $50,817,000. That sum would have to be found in cash this year to take care of this undertaking. The Minister of Finance is reported to have said in Montreal a few days ago that none of the Victory Loan, 1919, would go into the Grand Trunk purchase. If he does not take the money out of the loan, he will have to take it out of some other pocket.
According to the blue-book furnished by the Government I find that the total liabilities of the Grand Trunk itself, that is the parent company, amount to $396,631,464.47, made up as follows:
Capital Stock.
4% Guaranteed stock	$ 60,833,332.51
1st Preferred 5%	stock	
16,643,999.782nd Preferred 5%	stock	
12,312,666.503rd Preferred 4%	stock	
34,884,534.95Total preferred stock	$124,674,533.74'Common stock	
116,583,124.44


$241,257.65S.27
[Stage Direction]
Funded Debt.
G. T. R. 5% Debenture stock..? 20,782,491.38 G. T..R. 4% Debenture stock.. 119,839,012.69 Great Western 6% Debenture
stock	 13,252,322.48
Northern 4% Debenture stock.. 1,499,979.65
Total debenture stock	$155,373,806.20
As per balance sheet December 31, 1918. Grand total	$396,631,464.47
I find in the London Times-on October 9, 1919-the date on which the agreement was entered into with the Grand Trunk
people-that these stocks were quoted as follows: Four per cent guaranteed stock, 46; first preference five per cent stock, 50; second preferred stock five per cent, 37i; third preferred four per cent, 20; common stock at 9; Grand Trunk Railway five per cent debenture stock at 78; Grand Trunk Railway four per cent debenture stock, 62. This would total, at the market value on October 9,	$160,178,301 as against
$396,631,464.47 par value. The total stocks and debentures guaranteed by the Dominion Government are as follows:
Total Stocks and Debentures Guaranteed by Dominion Governement
Debenture Stock
5% G.T.R...	.
4%	"	..	.
5% G. Western 4% Northern..
Total,
Stock Exchange Value as listed in
Rate.
$ 20,782,491.3S	@	7S119,839,012.69	@	6213,252,322.4S	@	781,499,979.65	@	62
[Stage Direction]
London Times October 9th-10th, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
Guaranteed. 4% Stock	
60,833,332.51	@ 46 -
[Stage Direction]
Total
[Stage Direction]
Interest guaranteed by Dominion Government on	$216,207,138.71
Total Stock Exchange Valuation	$129,769,662.99
Amount that could be saved. Principal	$ 86,437,475.72
Annual Interest on	$216,207,138.71 @ 5% and 4% as above $8,988,633.66
"	"	"	$129,769,662.99 @ Govt, rate 51%.	.. $7,137,331.46
Annual interest could be saved	$1,851,302.20
To come to the stocks, excluding the debenture stocks or what are commonly-known as bonds, the Government are guaranteeing the payment of interest on four
Total	 241,257,658.27
,	Total Saving	
It might be argued that you could not force the holders of the debenture stocks to sell out at the market value, and some hon. members might also argue that you could not force the holders of the ordinary stocks, the first, second and third preference and guaranteed stocks, to sell out either. But we were told by the Minister of Railways, at page 1084 of unrevised Hansard, that the total indebtedness of the
per cent guaranteed to the amount of $60,833,332.51. The total stocks, including this amount, together with Stock Exchange valuations, are:
4% Govt. Stock.
	$60,833,332.51
Value as Listed in London Times.
Oct. 9-10,1919.
27,983,332.95 8,321,999,89 4,617,249.93 6,976,906.99 10,492,481.20
58,391,970.96	$ 2,441,361.55
Grand Trunk to the Dominion amounted to $97,000,000 odd, and that the interest due to the Dominion Government by the Grand Trunk amotmted to $34,879,253; and it seems to me that, with the Grand Trunk in that position, if the Government had demanded payment from them of the $34,000,000, with the undertaking that they should continue to pay the deficits amounting to seven million dollars a year, the Grand Trank people
4 per cent Government	Guaranteed Stock. . .	
		Stock
		Exchange
Total Stock.		Rate.
4% Guar	
$ 60,833,332.51	465% 1st P	. . . . 16,643,999.78	505% 2nd P	. . . . 12,312,666.50	3744% 3rd P	.. .. 34,884,534.95	20Common	. . . . 116,583,124.44	9
would very probably have said they were not in a position to comply with that requirement and were not able to take care of the deficits on the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the minister, if he wanted to be generous, could have said to them: "All right, we will not press for the payment, but we will take over your stocks at the exchange value." It would have been a fair and generous offer to the shareholders to exchange with them Dominion Government bonds at four per cent for all of their shares on the basis of the stock exchange valuations on the 9th of October, 1919, the day the agreement was made. If they did not wish to accept that, then the minister could have said: " Then pay us the $34,000,900 you owe us, and pay the deficits on the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific." But there is no reason in in the world why the sixty million dollars should be guaranteed-it is over two million dollars in excess of the total valuation given to the stocks by the 'London Stock Exchange on October 9-and something further arbitrated. We have no idea what the arbitration award may amount to, but we do know that the stock exchange valuation was only $58,000,000, and that the Grand Trunk were not in a position to dictate to the Government. The Grand Trunk would have had to accept the offer of the Government, and surely the offer to buy their stocks on the basis of the stock exchange valuations, of that date would have been more than generous. At any rate, it would have been more generous an offer than I would agree to, and more generous, I think, than the Government would have been justified in making. But at all events it would have cleaned up the whole transaction, and you would have had all the stocks for less money than we are agreeing to pay now, and there would have been no arbitration. I therefore support the amendment in view of the fact that we have had very little information of any value, the information that has been furnished us having been taken from statements of two years ago, and the whole situation having been very much confused by different ministers giving to the House different statements at different times.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The, House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester):: in that wilderness. It has been almost a point of religion with the Conservative party to preserve a narrow Ontario extending from the Quebec border along the lakes as far as Sault Ste. Marie, afraid1 to go further north; a course whose effect has been to increase the urban population at the expense of the rural, so that, notwithstanding all the immigration the province has received, the rural population has not been maintained at the level of that of the other provinces thus losing representation in this House, and neglecting the expansion of trade to those vast uncultivated regions of the north which they could develop by sending their population there, but depending upon increasing protective duties to maintain their industries. Such has been the policy of the Conservative party. The late Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier wanted to construct from Winnipeg to Quebec a line 300 miles shorter than any other, in order to make it possible to bring the products of the West from the very centre of the producing prairies to the maritime ports at a cheaper rate. If the Conservative Government when it came into power had immediately put its heart and soul into the completion of that road and had completed it in accordance with the contracts given to the Grand Trunk railroad, we would not to-day be in the position in which we are.
Under the circumstances, I say that, this Grand Trunk proposition is not a bargain which the people of Canada are to-day willing to accept. The expressions of opinion which I have cited show that the feeling against this proposition is not confined to Montreal as speakers on the other side have told us. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), and I hope at this last hour some hon. members opposite m.ay do a little more thinking and may possibly divest themselves of the yoke of party and realize the necessity of rejecting this project for the time being.
We are, of course, taxed with being unjust towards the shareholders in Great Britain, and on the second reading I said a few words on that topic. Hon. members on both sides of the House, as well as the people generally, have all possible sympathy for the shareholders who may be losing money; but as has been stated in the Drayton-Acworth report, the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company have, for the last ten years up to 1916, received some $36,000,000 in dividends which have 
not been earned. Had that amount been expended in improvements on the road, the Grand Trunk railway would in 1916 have been in good condition, and, therefore, the company would have been able to get further credit to operate the road and would not have been under the necessity to-day of making this bargain or of going into the hands of the receiver. We have been told that we should be generous to the shareholders of Great Britain. I yield to no one in the desire loyally to respect British institutions of all kinds and to respect British investors as well. We have received th'eir investments in the past, and we shall need their investments in the future; but I have a higher regard for British capitalists and investors than the regard which, has been shown by some hon. gentlemen opposite who claim that we must put Canada into the position of facing a possible deficit of $100,000,000 or $120,000,000 if necessary in order- to say that we have' done justice to investors in the old country. The capitalists of Great Britain would not regard that as evidence of great financial ability. When they put their capital into enterprises in Canada or Australia they do not expect that the people of those countries were going to ruin themselves in order to let those capitalists have a profit on their undertakings. They put their capital into enterprises in Canada, Australia, Newfoundland and other countries with a view of controlling their undertakings; they depend upon their own energy and intelligence to make those enterprises go; and if sometimes they are unfortunate, as they have been in the case of the Grand Trunk, they have only themselves to blame for that. As long as the shareholders of the Grand Trunk are in the position that they have a railroad which has been paying dividends to them for some time, let them, appeal to their brothers alongside of them in London and Liverpool, and let them tell their friends: across the sea of the splendid prospects of the future development of the immense resources of Canada and point out to them that investments placed in a railroad already built and in operation are bound in time to be successful and remunerative. We are not today in a position to place Canada under the necessity of contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to support a few investors in Great Britain, and they do not expect that of us. They know that we have in Canada a country in which the Grand Trunk under proper administration is in time bound to be a success. We shall not for some years be in a position to assume

such an obligation as. that of taking over the Grand Trunk railway in order to put it on a proper footing. Let them endeavour to make a success of it by their own energy and let them assist in developing the resources of that part of this continent through which their line runs, and they will in time be able to make a success of the road; but it does not belong to Canada to-day to assume such a responsibility. I, therefore, declare that I will vote with pleasure for the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, which especially asks the Government to defer action until further notice has been given to the people of Canada and not to impose this added burden upon the Canadian people at this moment.	.


Mr. SAMUEL FRANCIS GLASS (East Middlesex):: I shall not at this stage detain the House at any length, and it is not with the idea that I can add anything to the arguments that have been adduced pro and con in reference to this subject that I rise. I listened with a good deal of interest this afternoon to the address of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp). I had rather expected that he would reply, perhaps fully, to the arguments, very important in my opinion, made by the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn) on Friday night last, but he made only a passing reference to the speech of that hon. member. Like other hon. members he seems much concerned over the $60,000,000 of guaranteed stock, which, they argue, has been greatly enhanced in price by the proposals that have been made to the Grand Trunk Company. It strikes me that the hon. member for London on Friday night emphasised very properly that the market quotations of any of these stocks do not represent their intrinsic value. For instance, there are a number of stocks with which we are all familiar quoted on the Montreal exchange to-day in respect of which there has been a large increment in value since the Government's proposals were before the House. Some of these stocks have almost doubled. I do not know the reason for that advance, but surely hon. gentlemen would not attempt to argue that the physical value of the properties represented by these stocks has increased in like proportion. Canadian Pacific stock, for example, previous to the war had risen to about 285. At that time it was argued with some force that in their lands unsold and other enormous resources the company had physical assets representing that stock value. On account of the war and the
change in the rate of interest and for other reasons Canadian Pacific stock has depreciated to a point below 150 to-day and during the war it dropped to about 135. Would hon. gentlemen argue that because Canadian Pacific stock dropped to 135 during the war the physical assets of the company had depreciated to a like extent? I submit, on the contrary, that a valuation pf the physical assets of the Canadian Pacific railway to-day would show them to be of very much higher value than previous to the war. The rate of interest naturally has had its effect on the value of the Grand Trunk stock, and it is quite possible that the very fact that the agreement under this legislation is going to fix practically a perpetual income of 4 per cent on this stock may have added something to its value. It is also quite probable that common sense would dictate to the people who hold this stock that interest rates are going to drop, and that in consequence this particular stock will appreciate in value. I should like to draw attention to a statement by the exMinister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) in which he points out that:
The American civil war, between 1861 and 1865, caused a loss of five billion dollars in property and it was financed practically without help from abroad. Before the close of the war in 1865 the treasury was paying five per cent on long time loans and seven per cent on temporary loans. Yet within three years money was to ha secured on long time at 2.10 per cent.
History may repeat itself, perhaps not to the very same extent, but the tendency at the present time is towards lower levels for money. It is for that reason that the Government in their war loans have issued a certain number of short term bonds which may be redeemed and longer term bonds issued when a lower rate of interest prevails.
The hon. member for Westmorland this afternoon seemed to take the ground that the Government should present this question to the country, that the people of the country were opposed to the principle of public ownership, and that the Government had no mandate from the country to proceed with this legislation. Sir, outside of the province of Quebec and possibly the provinces by the sea, the whole country almost from the Pacific to the most easternly part of Ontario, as hon. gentlemen must know if they read the newspapers, is strongly in favour of the principle of nationalization of these railways. I must confess I have had my doubts as to the efficient management of railways under government

control, probably from the fact, as is the case with other hon. members, that during the many years the Intercolonial has been under government operation and management it has not met with that success that some of the other roads have had. On the other hand, there are reasons why it has not had that success. As the hon. member said this afternoon the road was not built to make money, and I submit that the first consideration with our railways should be, not what they can make, hut how efficient a service they can give to the business of the country; that is much more important than dividends. The hon. member said it was not desirable nor was it intended that the Intercolonial should earn dividends. It was built to carry out one of the terms of Confederation and connect the Lower Provinces with Ontario and Quebec and the West. If it was good policy to build the Intercolonial to develop the trade and commerce of these provinces, why may not the same principle be applied to other parts of the country? I do not think my hon. friend really thought it would be good policy from his point of view to go to the country. He knows there was an election in Ontario only a week ago; we all know about it. The strong vote that got behind the United Farmers of Ontario shows most clearly that the farmers and the great bulk of the people of that province stand solidly behind the principle of public ownership and the nationalization of railways.
That is what it meant more strikingly than anything else. The farmers of Western Canada are just as strongly of this opinion, and I venture to think that if this question were submitted to all the farmers of Canada west of Quebec there would be as ready a response in support of the principle of public ownership as has been demonstrated in the vote taken in Ontario a week or so ago. The hon. gentleman asks, why the effort to force this legislation through the House at the present time? I -think that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) the other evening gave very ample reason why it is desir-able that the matter should be dealt with without delay, and I do not feel that it is at all necessary that I should follow the arguments advanced from time to time on the opposite side in order to establish the fact that monthly, weekly, daily, the operation of the road under present conditions represents an enormous loss to the country. I say therefore that if it be possible, by a consolidation of the different railways and the addition to them of the Grand Trunk,

to effect an appreciable economy, such as we believe will be the result of this undertaking, it is desirable that we should put this legislation through without undue delay. The hon. member this afternoon advanced this argument: If the Grand Trunk could not operate its system successfully, how can it be done under public ownership? Well, the hon. gentleman does not present the full facts as they really exist. We know very well that in Western Canada the Canadian Northern is linked up with a system of railways that furnish valuable transportation facilities through-a very large area of the most productive part of the country. In Eastern Canada the Canadian Northern has not connections but the Grand Trunk has and it is a most .reasonable argument and one which cannot be refuted that, taking the advantages which the Canadian Northern has in the West with the advantages possessed by the Grand Trunk in the East, and linking them up with the Transcontinental .system, there will be a consolidation of railways that will mean increased efficiency and an improved earning capacity, result^ -ing to some extent in profit as against the conditions under which the railways have been heretofore operating. The hon. gentleman's contention that if the Grand Trunk could not operate successfully neither can the Government make a success of the same system is entirely erroneous and does not stand against the arguments which the-Government have presented on the question.
My hon. friend this afternoon, in support of his opposition to the measure, referred, with great gusto and glee, to the attitude of the Montreal Star. I suppose that the Montreal Star is very much like all other papers; it can1 jump the fence as fast as the average-politician- when the necessity arises. I have before me an extract from that paper under date Friday, May 25, 1917, in the early days of the negotiations. Let us see what the Montreal Star had to say on that occasion in reference to the railway situation:
Moreover, we have always pursued the poliey of building our railways ahead of the apparent need. We have not waited for population to settle in a district and clamour for a railway. We have sent the railway first, trusting to population to follow it in and make it pay. Today the Canadian Pacific is a prosperous institution. It looks as if it could not fail. But this was not always so. It began as a tremendous experiment, thrust through a wilderness and flung over a mountain range. It came near to ruining its projectors and wrecking the nation.
Thus it is no wonder that, in our growing time, we went a little mad on railway-building We had always gambled, nationally, in rail3.

This time we lost. We have a railway framework, especially in the West, for ten times as many people as we have got there. We have in the West, a mile of railway for every 123 inhabitants; even the well-railed United States has 400 inhabitants for ever mile. The United Kingdom has 2,000 per mile. But, having got this framework, having paid for it ourselves very largely, having mortgaged the country, Federally and Provincially, to the hilt on its behalf, what are we to do with it?
Let us see what the Star thought we should do with it at that time:
There are two reasons against throwing the non-paying portions of it away. (1) It would be like tieing an anchor round one's own neck on shipboard and then throwing the anchor into the sea. It would drag the unhappy victim after it. We are too tightly tied up to the credit of our embarrassed railways to lightheartedly toss them overboard. (2) If we threw them away now, we should only be compelled to rebuild them again in the near future. The Canada of the next decade or so is going fco need that steel framework.
But if we do not throw them away, we must keep them going. That is a self-evident proposition. There are only two ways to keep them going. One is to continue to give the companies the money, let them spend it, and let them keep the railways and their earnings. In this way, we do all the paying, and the railway magnates do all the profiting. If there are losses, we shoulder them; if there are profits, the railway magnates pocket them. The only people who may get a look in occasionally on this system are the politicians. For further particulars see various scandal revelations.
The other way of keeping these non-paying railways going, is for the nation to take them over and run them as national railways.
That is what the Montreal Star said on Friday, May 25, 1917:
In this way, we may do all the paying; but we will at least have something to show for our money. We will have the railway itself-we w>ll have the subsidiary enterprises which its Private owners have thought it profitable to start-and we will have all its prospects for making money as the country Ails up.
This the Star thinks ought to be done.
^ We believe that the Government should make no bones about taking over the Grand Trunk Pacific. It was the last, worst gamble of them all; and we have pap-fed it long enough. Its promoters cannot make it pay. They will not even operate the National Transcontinental which was to be its trunk line to the East. Their entire ambitious programme has utterly collapsed. The proud performance they promised us is not to go on-but, unfortunately, we do not, like a disappointed audience, get our money back. That being the case, we should not hesitate to take over the " show."
What is the use of hon. gentlemen talking about what the Star says now? I have just read what it said when in its sober senses, uninfluenced by trusts and interests who possibly have since got behind it. I do not believe myself to-day that the editorial comments of the Star represent the real inward
feeling of the editor of that paper. There may be some reason why he has been impelled to take the course he has followed during recent months.
Now, my hon. friend says it is safe to trust' the people. I thoroughly agree with him, and whether it is safe to trust them or not we are bound to do so in a democratic country, because they will direct and dictate the way in which public affairs shall be conducted. The largest province of the Dominion has spoken with great force within the last few days concerning its attitude on this question of the nationalization of railways, and I think it is only reasonable to presume that if the question were submitted to the whole country the verdict would be one not much at variance with that expressed in the province of Ontario. My hon. friend this afternoon was much perturbed as to what might be the policy of the-Government under national ownership in reference to the great ports of Halifax and St. John. Why, Sir, what an absurd position that is. Is the Government of this country going to spend millions of dollars developing the ports at Halifax and St. John and elsewhere-is it going to spend colossal sums of money in the development of our transportation facilities-and starve these ports-in connection with the operation of railways? Surely the taking over of the Grand Trunk Railway and operating it under the National system, by the people and for the people, will not be subversive of the interests of our national ports, also under the same Government. I submit that if there were any chance of directing a great amount of traffic to the ocean ports of St. John and Halifax, this desideratum would be far more likely to be achieved under a national system of railway control than under private ownership. There is therefore no ground whatever for the argument put forward by the hon. member in this respect.
The hon. gentleman also gave as a reason why we should not acquire this road the fact that the Drayton-Acworth report said that-$51,000,000 would be necessary for equipment and improvements. Well, Sir, I say,-God be praised that our country has reached such a state of development that the facilities of our railways call for expansion to that extent. Now, with the opening up and1 expansion of industry and the need of the country to expand her exports in every respect, would it not be a calamity if any part of our system of railroads were forced to continue in a condition of unpreparedness -in which they could not carry the trade and; commerce of the nation?

One of the best arguments why the Government should take over and operate this railway is that the company cannot under present conditions provide the equipment necessary to properly take care of the commerce of the country. The hon. gentleman says that the value of this property must he determined and that we must take stock of the physical assets. I am thoroughly in accord with him; I think that is good logic and common sense. We must take stock of the physical assets, we must determine what they are worth and the value which .is determined to be in the different stocks will be represented by whatever equity there may be between the value of the physical assets and the existing liabilities. Is that not all provided for in this agreement? Yet hon. gentlemen will lead the country to believe that we are recklessly jumping into this thing and that we are going to pay the Grand Trunk whatever they claim their assets are worth. Nothing of the kind can be deduced from the agreement which has been presented to the House. The Government, under the agreement, have made very wise, very ample, provisions for getting at the actual value.
The hon. gentleman says: " Let the country dictate the terms." The country, through this Government, is dictating the terms in connection with this project. We have been following some of the various suggestions that hon. gentlemen have been giving to us and yet they may not have realized it.
The public operation of railways is not a new thing in the world. Some companies have operated them with a satisfactory degree of success; some have not. Our friends, as a strong reason why we should keep away from government operation, point to the results that have been obtained in the operation of the Intercolonial. I submit that is no argument at all. I submit that it is no argument to say that because railways have not been operated efficiently under government management the. fault is with the principle. The principle may be and is, sound. The fault is in the direction of the management. If the Government cannot get efficient management to operate these roads satisfactorily the people of the country will tell the Government that it will have to make way for some other men who will do it. I do not think it is reasonable to condemn the principle because in certain cases railways have not been operated successfully. I have here an article that was written by Mr. E. B. Biggar in Saturday Night in con-
nection with a series that he wrote. He makes this observation and I think it is very significant:
How does it come about that the same tendency as in the postal service, etc., has shown itself in every quarter of the world in railway matters, and how are the advocates of private ownership to account for the fact that of all countries in the world which have become masters of their own railways, no nation-
This is the point I wish to draw the attention of the House to:
-has re-consigned them to their former owners and none has completely abandoned the principle of state ownership? Surely the test of actual experience has some value on this point, where the people have tried both systems, and still have the power to make their own choice.
It may be that these railways under government operation will not earn as big dividends as they might under operation by individuals, but the operation of a government road is not so much for the dividends it earns as for the efficiency- of the sendee it gives to the people of the country. The main, fundamental object of government operation is to give the best service possible. Under the new conditions in which we find ourselves after this war in connection with the extension and development of our commerce, it will be necessary that great care be taken to see that we do not handicap the movement of commerce by inadequate railway facilities.
The hon. gentleman this afternoon, in an argument in which he sought to justify the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific and Transcontinental railways,, drew attention to the fact that a large number of troops had been transported over this road. My hon. friend knows very well that they were transported over the road because the Government were paying for the transportation and that if they had not been transported oWer that road they would have been trans^ ported over the Canadian Pacific, or the Canadian Northern. It was fortunate under the circumstances, as the Government had the road, that they were able to make this use of it, to enable it to render service to the empire and to save money for the country in connection with its operation.
1 have said more than I intended to. I rose to answer some of the observations df the hon. member for Westmorland. He rose a few minutes after three to make a few minutes' speech, as he termed it, and he engaged the interest of the House for an hour and three-quarters. I listened with great interest to wdiat he had to say but I could not find that I had derived any degree of enlightenment from his remarks; nor

was I convinced that the proposition of the Government was not in the best interests of the country.
It is a peculiar thing, yet it does seem so, that the province of Quebec almost alone stands out as being opposed to the principle of public ownership. The people of Quebec are isolated in this respect as they have been before in other issues before the country, but after all the sentiments and wishes of the whole people must dictate and carry weight as against the opinions of a small minority. I have no fear what the verdict will be when the Government has to ask the endorsement of the country on the question of the public ownership of railways. The question, I repeat, is not new. It has been discussed, pro and con, throughout all the provinces of Western Canada as well as in the province of Ontario and in other parts of the country, and there is a growing, an increasing, sentiment strongly behind the principle of public ownership.
When we have determined what our policy shall )be by the vote of this Parliament let all these prejudices which we hold at the present time and all this captious criticism which has been indulged in to show the need for an opposition rather than because there is any force of public opinion behind it, be forgotten,; let us get together and -when we have accepted the principle of this proposition let us not continue to knock the project either by ourselves or through the press of the country. Let us get behind the National railway and build it up. I would be sorry to see anything done that will be detrimental to the interests of the great Canadian Pacific railway. The Canadian Pacific has had its troubles in the years that have elapsed since its organization, but it has crossed the quicksands and is now on the way towards continued prosperity. We rejoice in the success which the Canadian Pacific has experienced. Its progress and its enterprise symbolize, in the Old Country, the enterprise and the energy of the people of this young and vigourous country through whbse support that road came into being. The Grand Trunk has operated in Canada for a period of sixty-five years. It was the pioneer road and in those early days sought to spread its rails over a country containing sparse settlements of but a few thousand people. It was operated at first at great loss to itself, and for many years went without dividends; indeed I understand some of its stock has never carried a dividend. But if some of the stock of the Grand Trunk has not carried a divi-105
dend will any hon. gentleman tell me that a dividend has ever been paid on our investment in the Intercolonial railway? Can we not be fair to these men who spent their money in Canada because they had faith in us and faith in our country? I submit that if the road did not pay dividends during wartime it was because the cost of labour and other operating expenses has been greater than the increase in the rates which the Government allowed them to collect from the people. But, Sir, the physical assets are there to-day and the road is not in any worse condition than it was before. As a matter of fact many betterments have been made and in regard to rolling stock, and other equipment, the road^ is in a better condition to-day than previously.^ Possibly, it may be said that it is not in a better position relatively speaking when the needs of the commerce of the country at the present time are born in mind. That possibly may be true, for the reason that in the unfortunate position in which the company has found itself it has not obtained capital sufficient to keep pace with the increasing needs of Canadian commerce. I do not think that regard for the widows and the orphans and others in Great Britain in whose behalf an appeal has been made constitutes the ground on which the Canadian Government is acting. We want to be fair and square, we want to do as we would wish to be done by; and I submit that the agreement which the Government has presented to the House affords the best possible evidence that a fair deal will be given to the shareholders without in any way prejudicing the interests of the Canadian people. I purpose supporting the Bill, and in taking that course I shall be doing that which my constituents would ask me to do. There have come from the county council and the city council in my riding, and from boards of trade and chambers of commerce throughout western Ontario, communications endorsing the Government's proposal and the principles of public ownership of public utilities and of our railways. Therefore, I am justified in supporting, and I intend to lend my support to, the proposal the Government has placed before the House.
Mr. E. d'ANJOU (Rimouski) translation) : Mr. Speaker, allow me to preface my remarks by saying that before the crime which is being hatched in the dark is perpetrated, I should be considered derelict in my duty, did I not, on behalf of my constituents whom I have the honour of repre-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear! Hear!
Mr. d'ANJOU (translation): Let us pride ourselves on our nationality, and with Sir Douglas Haig, I shall say: "Let us pride ourselves on our French origin", just as that great Scotchman was proud oif his own stock.
, Mr. Speaker, why are we here in session to-day? This session was called by the Union Government for the ratification of a peace treaty. Whether Parliament summoned us under a false pretense or not*, such at any rate was the ultimate result .aimed at. The Peace Treaty, has been ratified; the Empire is now safe and we had better go back to our respective constituencies.
Further, let me say, (Sir, that the speech 
from the Throne did not foreshadow any possibility of such an important measure being about to be submitted to this House, and still less was the taking over of the Grand Trunk contemplated or referred to. As a matter of fact, as stated by several hon. members, the proposal which is now being debated is the outcome of negotiations carried on during several months between the Government and the Grand Trunk Company, in connection with the purchase of their system. Why is the Government jamming this measure through the House? Wherefore such an undue haste? The reason is not far to seek; there is something in the wind, there is a nigger in the woodpile, and as suggested by the hon. president of the council (Mr. -Rowell), suppose the people were given the fullest information about this deal, a campaign would be 'started and soon be in full swing throughout. the country; the electorate would be enlightened on the merits of this Bill, and undoubtedly public opinion would be stirred up to its very depths. The Government composed as it is of men whose courage is not screwed up to the sticking point and not possessing very strong and abiding convictions, they would back down and beat a hasty retreat.
It is a well known fact that wherever government ownership was given a trial, it has involved nations in financial min. I need not go very far afield to find instances of this. Our very neighbours the United States have tried this policy during the war period; it proved a complete failure and the Government had to face a deficit amounting to millions of dollars. The result was the same in England. Considering those unfortunate results, the Canadian Government should not expect the present venture to carry any better advantage. Does our present financial condition justify the Government in adding this new line to their system? We do not know whether the liabilities assumed will run up to $500,000,000, or $600,000,000 or $700,000,000, but we do know that, whatever they may amount to, they will be added to our national debt, which has already gone up to $2,000,000,000. Let us be mindful of the fact that our soldiers are knocking at our door, in .search of money for their wives and children. The Government answers that it cannot come to their rescue; in fact, the Government itself is now trying to get from the people, in the shape of a loan, the requisite money to face its war liabilities. It seems to me that before this policy is carried any further, the conse-

quences which it might have with respect to the country should be weighed with great care.
If the Government wishes to spend money in spite of anything, why should they not encourage agriculture? Why should they not establish experimental farms where they are needed? The Government asks the farmers to strive patriotically to increase food pi'oduction, and yet they will not supply them with the means for so doing. If this system of reckless expenditure keeps on, the Government will be left with no other way out than levying a land tax. Should this happen, I should like to see whether the hon. members who support the Union Government would put a good face on the matter.
The hon. member (Mr. Glass) who preceded me says that an editorial was published in 1917, by the Montreal Star, in favour of government ownership of railways. That may be true; but it is no less true that the Star holds a different view to-day. So, once more does the proverb apply that: "Fools only never change their opinion." Like many others, the Star, after a careful study of the question, has thought it proper to modify its views. That paper must have disowned its past, since it blames the policy of our good friends on the other side of the House, though it has helped placing them in* power in 1917, and it did not shrink from insulting the French Canadians, in order to compass that end. Would the mandate held by the Government allow them to make the acquisition of that system? In 1917 the so-called Union Government went to the people with a war programme; their talk was all about the winning of the war and saving the Empire: They have succeeded, but this is no reason why they should bring ruin to Canada. If they had told the people, at the time, that not only did they wish to carry on the war but that they intended also to buy the Grand Trunk, what would have happened? More than one half of the hon. members on the other side of the House would not be here to-day.
Such being the facts, I do not hesitate to say that the Government should let this proposition stand till next session; and should consult the people by way of a referendum in the meantime, and if this policy is approved, they will be free, then, to enforce it, because, after all, it is the people who pay.
My opinion on the question is this: Public interest is not considered and the Grand Trunk is bought to no other purpose
105*
than to enrich certain friends of the Administration, certain political bandits who-helped place it in power. So far as the elections that recently took place in* Ontario are concerned, I may .say that' history will repeat itself at the expense of our good friends. The hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Glass) said, a few moments ago, that the outcome of the Ontario election meant, in a way, that the present policy of this Government had been approved. I wonder on what authority the hon. member may rely to make such a statement, when Sir Adam Beck, the greatest champion of the principle of state ownership of all public utilities has been defeated in London by an overwhelming majority. This would seem to be an evidence of the fact that the people are not ready to assume any responsibility of that kind. If the hon. gentleman was right in making that statement, it must be inferred that the Hearst government should have' been returned by a large majority; but I think it would be more in keeping with the dictates of common sense to say that the verdict rather meant the reverse.
And another important .point must be considered also and it is this: The operation of our railways by this Government would be fraught with danger to the best interests of the country. Unscrupulous as they are known to be, the hon. gentleman would then have at their disposal a patronage machine of a most dangerous character with respect to elections, and it .seems to me that if the electors had the opportunity so to do, they would show ther present Government that such a policy is unreasonable, foolish and contrary to the best interests of the country.
I have not the slightest doubt that the abettors of this transaction are the same as were seen behind the Canadian Northern scheme, that is, the ring around Mackenzie and Mann. The other day, an hon. member on the other side of this House, charged* us with being subservient to the interests of the Canadian Pacific. Well, so far as I am concerned, I am not here to protect the interests of the Canadian Pacific any more than to protect the interests of the Grand Trunk, and the Canadian Pacific is no more able to influence my vote here, to-night, than the Grand Trunk Company would be. I stand here as a representative of the people, to protest against .any wrongdoing on the part of the Government, against any disastrous policy; this is what I understand my duty to be.

The members of the loyal Opposition oi His Majesty are not for sale, but as much cannot be said of the members on the other side of the House.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) sheds tears over the sad fate of the poor English widows who are shareholders of the Grand Trunk Company. Well, Mr. Speaker, England is not the only country where widows are to be found, there are widows in Canada also. The .only difference is that our widows are starving because the Government forced their husbands, by means of conscription, to go overseas and fight to help save the Empire. I must say that my sympathies go out to the Canadian widows rather than to the English widows, and if the hon. member for Red Deer were a true Canadian he would feel just as I do about this.
It .seems to me that if the Government can find their way clear to dispose of millions in order to enrich the political jugglers to whom they owe the victory which they won in 1917, they could also find some money to provide for the widows of our *soldiers and to meet the needs of their families, for, it must not be lost sight of, Mr. Speaker, that when the Administration called to the colours the husbands and the fathers, urging them to go and fight for the sacred rights of liberty and of the smaller nations, they were most lavish in then-promises.
Mr. Speaker, the Government's boat is cracking, it is leaking; the rats are climbing up from the hold, and before it sinks under the wave of the people's anger, the hon. gentlemen want to fill up their pockets and the pockets of their friends. I protest with all my might against this new outrage, this iniquity, this waste of public money.
The Government having made such great sacrifices for the last four years from a financial standpoint, they .should have a better sense of their obligations and not throw the money out at the window by handfuls; they should administer with economy, they should encourage agricultural-industry, establish experimental farms at points like Rimouski, for instance, as was said by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster),. or wherever it might be of advantage to the farmers to have one.
It has been stated by hon. members on the other side of the House that, if we are, to-day, in such a difficult position with respect to railways, the blame is to be imputed to the Liberal policy, and the fault is Sir Wilfrid Laurier's-the old .story of everything being Papineau's fault-and if Laurier had not built the Grand Trunk [Mr. D'Anjou, 1
Pacific, the acquisition of the Grand Trunk would not now be necessary. While putting forward this argument, the hon. member for Springfield proved very zealous in behalf of his new friends. He must have forgotten that he was once a Liberal candidate in the county of Macdonald and that he accepted the Liberal platform, at the time, with no reservation as to the Grand Trunk Pacific. He must have forgotten, also that a number of members from Quebec had gone there to lend him assistance and that some of his friends were imprisoned, even, so as to prevent them from addressing the electors in his behalf. I should rather think that he remembers all that. However, I think it ill becomes him to make a display of independence every time he happens to speak, in this House, on important questions. He is not such an independent man as he assumes to be; he is the slave of the Government. It is not the first time that he indulges in such feats for anything may be expected on the part of an hon. gentleman who, after moving an amendment, is seen registering his own vote against it, two minutes later, in order to support a government measure.
I have noticed that, whenever the hon. Minister of the Interior rises from his seat to speak, ,a good half of the members around him cheer him to the echo ,as soon as he opens his mouth, although seventy-five per cent of them- do not understand the importance of what he says. They fancy that he must be saying something very clever or very deep.
Therefore, all the hon. gentlemen to your right, Mr.* Speaker, are going to vote in favour of the taking over of the Grand Trunk, because the Minister of the Interior has convinced them that it is was good business for the coujitry.	[DOT]
On a question of such importance, every hon. member is in duty bound to be mindful of the fact that he owes a duty to his country first, and not to his party; that he sits here as a representative of the people, and not as a slavish follower of a leader, and that he ought to act and vote with discrimination, and do honour to the mandate received from the people.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that before going any further, the Government respond to public sentiment and .submit this measure to the electorate, for I do not entertain the least doubt that the people would pass condemnation on such an extravagant policy, and I am confident that the people, getting hold of an avenging scourge, wall cast out for ever the sellers and changers from the temple.


Mr. FONTAINE (Hull) (translation):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate, I deem it my duty to register my protest, on behalf of the electors whom I have the honour of representing in this House, against this disastrous transaction upon which the attention of the House has been focussed for about a month, I mean the nationalization of the Grand Trunk, or :n other words, the taking over of the Grand Trunk Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific by the Canadian Government.
Do not believe. Sir, when I say that I rise to register my protest, that I fancy that the Premier or the Government will give heed to my words; far be it from me to harbour such a thought; for I know that their minds are not open to conviction, but I shall have at least the satisfaction of having discharged my duty. As a matter of fact, the best informed and the most experienced members, on this side of the House, have raised the most serious objections and clearly shown that this transaction was going to bring ruin to Canada. But it is all of no avail. It would seem as though the Government were swayed by a diabolical power, which renders their minds impervious to conviction by evidence and impels them to push this matter through. May I venture to say at all events that this deal is the outcome of pre-election promises and pledges given previously to the elections of 1917? Or have they struck a bargain to that effect with the ring of London stock-jobbers? For, after all, Sir, they cannot, except on most serious grounds, ignore and brush aside all the protests which are being voiced all over the country, by the Boards of Trade, and public bodies and thus set at naught the almost unanimous consensus of opinion expressed by our fellow citizens against this scandalous transaction. When I heard, the other day, the hon. Minister of the Interior stating before this House that public opinion was satisfied, I could not help thinking that he was labouring under a delusion or rather that he was trying to lead the members of this House into supposing that public opinion was in accord with him; for, he must surely realize, as we all do, that there exists a strong sense of dissatisfaction and disapproval throughout the country against this audacious deal so skilfully engineered which will enable London capitalists to pile up millions, to .the prejudice of the Canadian people.
So, Mr. Speaker, you see how warily they have proceeded in framing their measure
and how they have made arrangements of long standing the better to smother public opinion. To 'begin with, a session was called in September, ostensibly under pretence of ratifying the Peace Treaty, which was quite unnecessary as the hon. members know very well that, as soon as the Treaty was ratified by Great Britain, we had nothing more to do with it, Canada being merely a British colony; but they merely wanted to draw a red herring across the track, and while we were discussing the platitudes submitted to us for consideration, the Government was giving the* finishing touch, in the dark, to their great scheme, the taking over of the Grand Trunk. A few days before that bomb-shell exploded, the hon. the acting Prime Minister told us that the session was practically over, and that the Government had no other important measures to bring down. Then it was that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) who is now being blamed for his absence, made up his mind to sail for Europe, to go and kneel on the tomb of his son, who so gloriously yielded up his life in the .service of his country on the front of war. To the same cause may be attributed the absence of the hon. member from Beauce.
Mr. Speaker, as the Government has money galore to spend, and rather than sink frtro hundred million dollars in this foolhardy transaction, I would suggest that they lower the duties on agricultural implements, so that our farmers may get cheaper farm machinery for the prosecution of their arduous toil. Two hundred million dollars, Sir! that means an enormous taxation which they are wringing out the pockets of the people, and instead of pouring those millions into the maw of the Grand Trunk Company, I would suggest that the Government take duties off articles of household necessity and the necessaries of life, so as to reduce the cost of living and allow workingmen to enjoy the comforts of home.
Why not reduce the income tax? Let me ask the Government, once more, if they have so much money, why do they not provide for the returned soldiers, who have made every sacrifice, who have run every risk to go and defend our liberties?
If there were some reason, at least, to believe that the Government could see its way clear to operate this line of railway with no increase in our deficit! But experience shows that the operation of a railway by the Government cannot he successful, and I want no other instance of this than the
1G70

operation of the Intercolonial, which is settled, every year, by a deficit. We are told that it will not be so any longer, that the operation of the Government railways will be entrusted to a commission of experts absolutely independent of political parties. Well, Sir, the Intercolonial and the Canadian Northern are operated by a commission of that kind, and yet, for the year just elapsed, it was settled with a large deficit, and so it is everywhere. Is it not a fact that government ownership in the United States has been a failure? I cannot believe the Government to be sincere in its pretensions. I vould say to the hon. ministers: Beware, gentlemen, the limit is reached, the people have been forbearing, they have put up with you for many* years, but reaction is now setting in, your friends have been swept away from power in Ontario. I fancy I sefe written in red letters above your heads, this prophetic sentence: [DOT] "Mene. Thekel, Peres." Perhaps you shall not retain power for all the time provided by the law, perhaps you shall be forced, in the very near future, to undergo the ordeal of an election which is to you such an object of terror.
Mr. Speaker, I shall vote with pleasure for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding), who is conversant with finance, who, for fifteen years, with his leader sir Wilfrid Laurier, has made the country happy and prosperous, and who has always safeguarded the real interests of the people.


Mr. PETER ROBERT McGIBBON (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that the Minister of Railways (Hon. J. D. Reid) is not in his place this evening, because I intend to throw a few bouquets at him,- and it is not often that any are thrown from this side of the House. I congratulate the minister upon the patience he has shown and the courteous answers that he has given to the questions, which were many, put to him from this side, as well as to the numerous questions that came to him from his own side of the House. I have always some sympathy for the person in the witness ' box who is questioned by one or two [DOT] lawyers; but in this case the Minister of Railways has been questioned by a couple of dozen lawyers, some from this side and some from the other side. He never lost his patience, however; Job was not in it with the minister for patience.
But I am sorry to sav that the minister's patience was wasted on a very bad case. This is the worst Bill that has ever come before any legislative body in this country.
SM. Fontaine.]
It is a ruinous Bill to this country; it is a knock-out blow. We are now seriously in debt-the amount of our debt is something over $2,500,000,000-and this Bill proposes to add another $500,000,000 to it. Just think of it; this debt will not be paid for generations to come. This is legislation which will impose a burden upon unborn generations.
The Government, so far as I can observe, are trying to frighten the people into the belief that they will have t-o go to the country if they do not pass this Bill. My belief is that if a secret ballot were taken on this Bill, the proposal would be knocked higher than a kite. But the ministers have been frightening the people, so far as I can see, on that head. I know that if they go to the country, the Union Government will not likely come back again. The farmers are coming .to their own at last; a lot of us business men will have to stay at home after the next general election and the farmers will fill our places. I hope that they will govern the country better than my hon. friends opposite have governed it during the last couple of years.
I am sorry that the Government is going ahead with this Bill in the absence of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). I give the Prime Minister credit for being an honest man. I believe that a few of his ministers are going ahead with this proposal and pushing it through to a finish against his will. Had he been in the city he could have been consulted, but he is away and we have not his counsel. If he were present I believe that the Bill would not have gone as far as it has gone.
A good deal has been said about the whole country being in' favour of this proposal, with the exception of Quebec and some of the eastern provinces. Well, Quebec is a very industrious province; we are not used to getting into debt, and the sum involved in this proposal seems enormous to us. We are an independent people; very few of our farms are mortgaged. So far as I can hear, many of the other provinces are not so independent. Ontario is controlled from Toronto; the trust, loan and mortgage companies control the people of Ontario to a considerable extent. If what I hear is true, British Columbia is pretty low in circumstances. But, as I say, we in the province of Quebec are independent. We cannot be brought into line with this Bill; we would lose our seats rather than vote for it. Personally, I would resign to-morrow rather than sanction this Bill. If I voted for it I would not dare go back to the county that I

represent; my humble home would he torn down and I would be among the missing. Just so with the Union Government after the next general election-they will be among the missing. Of course, we do not all see eye to eye; I am simply giving you my view. It is not Unionists or the Liberals on the other side who are against this Bill; it is the old time Conservatives of the Sir John A. Macdonald school. Those are the men who are down on this Bill and they won't stand for it if they can help it. And if they cannot help it now they will help it at the next election.
I do not wish to detain the House; I simply say, in closing, that I hope this Bill will not pass. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision to go on with it, and that they will side-track it for some time to come.
On the motion of Mr. Michael Steele (South Perth) the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 10.0 p.m.
Tuesday, November 4, 1919.