[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 14) to incorporate the Century Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Monk.
Bill (No. 31) respecting the Orford Mountain Railway Company-Mr. Parmelee.


Mr. MORIN asked :: Has a census commissioner been appointed for the county of Dorchester, province of Quebec ? If so, who, and date of his appointment?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The appointment has not yet been made.


PORT HOPE HARBOUR.
Mr. WARD moved :: What amounts have been expended by government in repairing the superstructure of the Port Hope harbour works in each year since
1885?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. .T. Israel Tarte) :: Mr, MULOCK.
1885	$5,089	571887	
970	061888	
2,362	721889	* . . 2,492 311890	
2,534	201891	
2,948	301892	
4,999	921893	
2,599	771894	
2,468	981895	
2.490	771896	
800	001897	
999	941899	
5,515	001900	
499	311900, to December 31	2,014	80Total	$38,785 65


MISPEC, N.B., BREAKWATER.
Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	Have tenders been asked by the Department of Public Works for the construction of a breakwater at Mispec, in St. John county, N.B.?
2.	If so, have any tenders for such work been received, and from whom, and what are the respective amounts of the tenders?
3.	Has the lowest or which tender been accepted?
4.	Has the contract been let? If so, to whom, and if not, why not?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. Israel Tarte) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, from-


Geo.   A.@: Applebv, St. John, N.B., $10,900.
Clark & Clark, St. John W., N.B., $10,990.
Simmons & Burpee, Gibson, N.B., $11,487.
John Burns, Ottawa, $11,963.


Jas.   E.@: 
REGINA, LONG LAKE AND SASKATCHEWAN RAILWAY LANDS.
Mr. DAVIS asked :: 1.	How many acres of land have been reserved for the Regina, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway Company from which to select the lands granted to the said company by way of subsidy?
2.	When were the said lands set aside?
3.	What amount has the company earned?
4.	Has said land been patented?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	2,750,000 acres.
2.	By order in council April 4, 1883 ; order in council December 30, 1884 ; order in council June 20, 1887 : order in council, February 4, 1891, and order in council June 18, 1892.
3.	1,625,344 acres.
4.	120,000 acres of said land has been patented.


GREAT NORTH-WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY LANDS.
Mr. DAYIS asked :: 1.	How many acres of land have been reserved for the Great North-west Central Railway Company from which to select the lands granted to the said company by way of subsidy?
2.	When were said lands set aside?
3.	What amount has the company earned?
4.	Has said land been patented?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	708,826 acres.
2.	Order in council July 16, 1889, amended by order in council February 17, 1890.
3.	320.000 acres.
4.	No.


P.E.I. MAILS.
Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Were tenders invited for the carrying of mails between Kensington and Park Corner, French River and Long River, all in Prince Edward Island, in the year 1900?
2.	When were tenders invited, the names of the parties tendering, and amount of their respective tenders?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded, and amount of his tender?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: Tenders were invited for this service in 1900, the notices being dated the 18th July, and the tenders due to be opened on the 31st August. The following is the list of
tenders received :


John C.: Durant	 $336
Edward Hillman	 375
Gordon Tupline	 380
The post office inspector at Charlottetown, to whom each tender was in turn sent beginning with the lowest, reported that the sureties for the lowest tenderer declined to act, that the sureties offered by the second tenderer were not good for the amount of the bond, and that the third tenderer, who was the former contractor, was strongly recommended for the service. As a consequence, the department made a contract with the third tenderer, Mr. Gordon Tup-line, at the rate of his tender viz.:	$380 a
year.


JOHN W. MEALEY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-"by Mr. Fowler-asked :
1.	Is John W. Mealey, of Pennfield, N.B., an officer of the Fishery Department?
2.	If so, when was he appointed?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	And will he be required to live at Beaver Harbour, or some other place convenient to the fishing grounds?
5.	Is he the same John W. Mealey who was an officer of the customs at Lepreaux, N.B., and if so, why was he dismissed?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) :: 1.	Yes, a fishery guardian.
2.	15th January, 1901.	.
3.	$1.25 per day and expenses, when actually employed.
4.	No instructions as to where he should live.
5.	He is presumed to be the same man. He resigned his office in the customs on the loth August, 1899, and his resignation was accepted on the 17th August, 1899. He was not - dismissed from the customs service.


HOPEWELL CAPE WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Fowler-asked :
1.	Who were the tenderers for the construction of the Hopewell Cape wharf, Albert county, N.B., and what was the amount of each tender?
2.	What time does the contract call for the completion of the work?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	Warren Downey, & Ernest
W. Lynds, Hopewell, N.B.
J. B. McManus, Memramcook, N.B	
Reid & Archibald, Halifax,
N.S	
Simmons & Burpee, Gibson,
N.B	
Heney & Smith, Ottawa,
Ont	
2.	8th October, 1901.


ST. JOHN ELEVATOR.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Fowler-asked :
What is the total amount of grain received and shipped through the new government elevator at St. John?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: Amount of grain passed through elevator at St. John, during winter of 1900 and 1901, up to 1st February, 1901 :
Wheat	
Corn	
Barley	
Rye	
Peas	
Oatmeal (bags)


TRENT CANAL.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Who was the successful tenderer for section No. 3 of the Balsam and Lake Simcoe division of the Trent canal, and what was the amount of
the tender?
2.	Who were the other tenderers, and at what figures did they tender?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Brown & Aylmer are the successful tenderers for section 3, of the Balsam and

Lbs.
15,673,790
8,873,850
054,140
526,246
1,090,980
215,500

Lake Simcoe division of the Trent canal, and the amount of their tender as extended upon estimated quantities is $369,202 25
2.	Magann & Gibson	 $407,665 25
Larkin & Sangster . . . 481,226 50
W. H. Davis	 566,783 25
Rogers & Taylor	 532,594 00


MAIL CONTRACT, ALMA.
Mr. McGOWAN asked :: What was the date the last time the contract for carrying the mails from Alma station, Ont., on the Grand Trunk Railway, to the post office was advertised and let by public tender? To whom let and the amount? Has said contract been since renewed by the Postmaster General without tender? If so, to whom, and the remuneration paid for such services? What arrangement was made with the contractor when the service was increased?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: Notices were issued on the 13th December, 1894, inviting tenders to be received at the department on the 25th January, 1895, for a contract for four years from the 1st April, 1895. Two tenders were received viz.:	From Alexander Gale, and Edward
O'Neill, each at fifteen cents per trip, and the tenderers having been asked to bid again, Mr. Gale, whose offer at twelve and a half cents per trip was the lowest, was awarded the contract at that rate, and a four years contract entered into with him. On the 11th June, 1895, the post office at Alma was removed, and the length of the route increased, and a corresponding increase was made in the rate of payment, which was made fourteen and a half cents per trip. It having been subsequently reported that the service had been satisfactorily performed, and the conditions advantageous to the public interest, and acting under the provisions of section 2, of clause 61, of the Postal Act, authority was given for the renewal of Mr. Gale's contract for a further term of four years from the 1st of April, 1901, on the same terms and conditions. On the 1st of August, 1899, the service of Alma was increased from two to four trips daily, and a temporary agreement was made with Mr. Gale for the additional semi-daily service at thirty-five dollars per annum. This agreement to continue until the expiration of the existing contract viz.: March 31, 1903.


PORT COLBORNE HARBOUR WORKS.
Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	Who was the successful tenderer for the harbour and other works at Port Colborne, Ont., awarded by the government last year?
2.	What was the amount of the accepted tender?
3.	Who were the other tenderers, and at what figure did they tender?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 


Mr. BLAIR.: 1.	Hogan & Macdonald.
2.	$395,000. M. J. Hogan, 114 Metcalfe Avenue, A. R. Macdonell, Westmount, Montreal.
3.	The Kunkin Bros., Construction Co., Cleveland, Ohio	$447,399	80
W. J. Pourpore and M.
McAuliff, Montreal. . . 475,000 00 H. T. Dunbar, Port Colborne	
532,237	93Mann, Simpson & Turner, Montreal	
553,600	00Geo. Goodwin, Ottawa. . 631,000	00


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: As regards the Department of Railways and Canals, I beg to reply :
1.	Hogan & Macdonell are the successful tenderers for ' improvements at Port Colborne.'
2.	The amount of accepted tender applying schedule prices to estimated quantities
is $906,519.90
3.	P. H. Gilbert	$ 921.943 00
Dunbar & McNaughton 978,119 50 Canadian Construction
Co	
1,024,687	65Wm. Buckner	
1,041,701	60
Hingman, Rogers &
O'Brien	 1,055,092	75
G. P. Magaime & W.
E. Phin	
1,056,993	50M. J. Haney	
1,116,785	00McNamee, Mann, Simpson & Turner	
1,142,787	00
Hughes Bros. & Bangs. 1,200,741 80 Randolph McDonald . . 1,574,664 00
M.	A. Cleveland	
2.331,736	00B. D. Stacy	
3,705,284	00N.	IC. & M. Connolly . . 1,115,546 00


ALLOWANCES TO CENSUS COMMISSIONERS AND ENUMERATORS.
Mr. MARTINEAU (by Mr. Talbot) asked :: (Translation.)
1.	Whether the government is aware of the existence of a lack of conformity between section 24 of the Census Act, Chapter 58, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, and the table of allowances paid to the census commissioners and enumerators, approved by Order in Council of the 11th March, 1891 ?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to secure the adoption of a table analogous to that of the 11th March, 1891, for the next census ?
3.	If so, is it the intention of the government to so amend said section of the Census Act as to remove the said anomaly and allow the adoption by the Governor General in Council of a table of census allowances adapted to the requirements of each case and to the amount of work done by each enumerator and each commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney A. Fisher).: (Translation) :
(1.) Yes.
|	(2.) The question is under consideration.

(3.) We do not think it necessary to amend the Census Act in order to accomplish that object.


YUKON DISTRICT-LIQUOR PERMITS.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER asked :: How much liquor, if any, were any or all of the following persons permitted by permit, letter or otherwise, to ship or send into the Yukon district in the seasons of 1899 and 1900, respectively :-
Henry Macaulay, Esq.
-* Houston, Esq.
Messrs. Murray and Ross?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Henry Macaulay- No permit was issued to Henry Macaulay, Esq., at any time. The department consented to an importation by Macaulay Bros, of 2,000 gallons of beer in 1900, under permit formerly issued by the commissioner. A permit for this amount was subsequently issued by the department.

 Houston-2,000 gallons of liquor in
1899, but none in 1900. Permit issued by the commissioner, and subsequently allowed by the department.
Murray and Ross-None in 1899.	6,400
gallons of liquor in 1900 issued originally by the commissioner, and subsequently allowed by the department. 3,600 gallons of beer in 1900.
I may say that my hon. friend from North Oxford" (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) who acted for me last year at various times, has called attention to the fact that there is an omission in the return which I laid upon the Table the other day. I will correct it by a supplementary return to-morrow.


ALIEN LABOUR LAW-BOAT-BUILDING AT WHITE HORSE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PRIOR-by Mr. Borden (Halifax)- asked :
1.	Have any complaints been received by the government from British Columbia or Yukon district about aliens being hired in Seattle and taken to White Horse to build boats there?
2.	If so, from whom were said complaints received and on what dates?
3.	Did the government acknowledge receipt of those complaints, if any?
4.	Has the government taken any action in regard to this matter?
5.	If so, what?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	From James Tagg, president of the Shipwrights' and Caulkers' Union, Victoria, B.C., on behalf of that union, received on the 25th February, 1901.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Instructions have been sent to the Alien Labour officer in Vancouver, B.C., to make an immediate investigation, in order
to ascertain the facts, and to report thereon, with a view to further action.
BANK ACT-UNAUTHORIZED USE OF 'SAVINGS BANK,' &e.
Mr. PREFONTAINE-by Mr. Angers-asked :
Is it the intention of the government to so amend the Bank Act as to prevent and prohibit the using by any person or persons of any name or description calculated to lead the public to consider such persons authorized to carry on a banking business, receive deposits bearing interest, give negotiable receipts and discount notes, as for instance by using the words ' savings bank,' ' discount office,' or other like designations?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). It is not the intention of the government to1 introduce any legislation on the subject at present. The existing law is probably as effective as any legislation could be. Section 100 of the Bank Act enacts that every person assuming or using the title of ' bank,' ' banking company,' ' banking house,'
' banking association,' or ' banking institution,' without being authorized so to do by that Act, or by some other Act in force in that behalf, is guilty of an offence against the Bank Act, and thereby becomes liable to fine, or imprisonment, or both.


BANK ACT-MORE EFFECTIVE INSPECTION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PREFONTAINE-by Mr. Angers-asked :
Whether it is the intention of the government to so amend the Bank Act as to provide for a more complete and effective inspection of the financial institutions of the country?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). It is not the intention of the government to introduce any measure on this subject. Under recent legislation provision was made for the inspection of the circulation of every chartered bank by officers of the Canadian Bankers' Association, and arrangements for this inspection are now in progress.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PREFONTAINE-(by Mr. Angers)- asked : (Translation.)
Whether It is the intention of the government to introduce, this session, a measure providing for the compulsory inspection of potash and ashes offered for sale in Canada, in accordance with the petition of the Board of Trade of Montreal ?
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier) :: (Translation.) The matter i>s under consideration.


PRINTING OF ' HANDBOOK OF CANADA.'
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1. In what printing office was the ' Handbook of Canada,' which was distributed at the Paris Exposition last year, printed?

2.	What was the total issue of said volume?
3.	What was the average cost per volume?
4.	Who supplied the paper for the work?
5.	If printed in any establishment other than the Government Printing Bureau, why was this done?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. S. A. Fisher) :: 1.	Herald Printing Company.
2. 10,000	cojties-5,000 English, 5,000 French.
3.	52 89-100 cents per copy, which was arranged for and approved by the Printing Bureau and done through the Printing Bureau.
4.	Herald Printing Company.
5.	This was done on a report from the Printing Bureau that pressure of work there prevented this book being printed at the Printing Bureau.


I. C. R.-DISMISSAL OF MECHANICS, MONCTON SHOPS.
Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	How many mechanics have been dismissed from the railway shops at Moncton since the 7th day of November last?
2.	For what reasons have these men been dismissed ?
3.	At whose instance were they dismissed?
4.	Were charges preferred against them, or any of them, and if so, by whom, and were investigations held?
5.	Have their places in the shops been filled by new appointments?
6.	What are the names of the men dismissed, and of the new appointments?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: On being made aware that this question was ou the Paper, I directed that the information should be procured as soon as possible from Moncton. I think it will be several days before I shall have it. but as soon as it comes, I shall notify the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler).


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
Statement showing the number of employees in the civil service, outside and inside, permanent and non-permanent, on 1st July, 1900, showing separately the number of English-speaking employees and the number of French-speaking employees in the several departments, with their salaries ; also the number of employees of the first class in each department, with'their salaries and their nationalities.-Mr. Angers.
Copies of all circulars, papers and instructions sent out by the Inland Revenue Department during the past year in reference to certain brands of baking powder being condemned by the department, and notifying merchants to cease their sale under penalty.-Mr. Roche (Marquette).
Copies of all orders in council, correspondence, reports, papers and documents in relation to changes in contracts for improvement or construction of the St. Lawrence canals from 1st January, 1897, up to the present time, and in relation to all extras allowed to any and all
Mr. CLARKE.: contractors for or in respect of work upon such canals or any of them, and all papers showing the amount of extras paid to any and each contractor upon each of such canals from the 1st January, 1897, up to the present time.-Hon. Mr. Haggart, by Hon. Mr. Tisdale.
Return of all correspondence, petitions or other documents between the Indian Department and Alexander Marchel, chief of the band of Miemac Indians residing on the Indian reserve, Saint Ann de Restigouche, P.Q., for years 1900 and 1901, relative to the Indian agent or his duties in connection with the said band.-Mr. Sproule.
Copies of all reports, orders in council, papers and correspondence respecting the dismissal or resignation of W. A. Russell, late inspector of steamboats.-Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper.
Copies of all orders in council and all correspondence, contracts or agreements, between the government or any member of the same, or any officer of any department, and the Kingston Locomotive Works Company, in reference to the supplying of locomotives or other rolling stock for the Intercolonial Railway; also what payments have been made on same, and the date of said payments.-Hon. Mr. Haggart, by Hon. Mr. Tisdale.
Copies of all correspondence, letters, papers and documents relating to the alleged interference with the fishing berths of the members of the Shad and East Dover Fishing Association in the county of Halifax, and all letters and communications to the government or Department of Marine and Fisheries from the said association, or from any person on its behalf relating to the matters aforesaid.-Mr. Borden (Halifax).
Copy of the memorial to His Excellency the Governor General and any communication to the government of Canada, or any member thereof, respecting the requirements of the Yukon territory, and all reports, communications and orders in council respecting the same or any subject of the said memorial.-Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper.
Copies of all accounts, agreements, receipts and vouchers in connection with the settlement of the petition of rights Pictou Harbour Commissioners vs. the Queen, which was completed by payment in 1898.-Mr. Bell (Pictou).


BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.
Mr.  T. O.@: DAYIS (Saskatchewan) moved ;
That this House is of opinion that the public interests demand that the railway companies of Canada should at the earliest moment be brought under control of a board of railway commissioners, clothed with full power to enforce the provisions of the Railway Act, and to prescribe and enforce the observance of such regulations as may be necessary in the public interest.
He said :	Mr. Speaker, the motion I
place in your hands is not new to this House. It was first introduced by the late member for Winnipeg, Mr. Jamieson, and later by the late member for Macdonald, Mr. Rutherford, in 1899. Last year I had the honour of moving practically the same resolution in this House with reference to the appointment of a railway commission. Those who are interested in this question

liad reason to hope that the government would take some action last year toward the establishment of a railway commission for the purpose of controlling the railroads In this country, and settling disputes between the people and those corporations. But the government have not done so, and still there is a growing feeling in this country that something of that kind should be done. We know as a matter of fact that all agitation in this country with reference to government ownership and control of railroads is the outcome of the way the railroads have been oppressing the people, and discriminating against one part of the country in favour of another. When we turn to the province of Manitoba and see what is taking place there to-day, when we find that the people of that province, in their desire to get relief from railroad monopoly, have undertaken practically to purchase 350 odd miles of railway for seven million dollars, a railroad which is not worth more than three and a half million dollars, we must come >to the conclusion that the people are in earnest in their determination to get relief from the monopolies under which they are labouring.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this sentiment is growing stronger in the country day by day. We see articles in the newspapers and read of speeches made on public platforms in favour of government control of railroads.
1 may say that I am in favour of government control. But the kind of control' government should have over railroads is a matter on which there is a great difference of opinion in this country. Some hon. gentlemen in this House are of opinion that the government should undertake the purchase or lease of all the railroads in this country. In that opinion I cannot concur, for the simple reason that I think that would be too large an obligation for the people of this country to undertake at. the present time ; nor do I think it is necessary for the government to purchase or lease all the railroads in this country. We heard a statement the other day by an hon. gentleman in this House that we could lease the Canadian Pacific Railway system and also the Grand Trunk Railway system for $1 a year each. Well, Mr. Speaker, taking the same basis of calculation as was adopted in Manitoba, I suppose the hon. gentleman would expect the people of this country to assume all the liabilities of these railroads, and all railroads that we might rent in this country. Now, when we take into consideration that the majority of the railroads in this coutnry are bonded for double what they are worth, I do not think this proposition will commend itself to the people of this country. Take the case of the Calgary and Edmonton road as one in point. There is a road bonded for five million dollars ; and I think you will find the statement in the report of the Minister
of Railways that the road did not cost more than three million dollars. I wonder if those hon. gentlemen who propose that we should lease these roads or purchase them, think we should pay to any corporation five million dollars for a road that they tell us only cost three million dollars. Take the Regina and Long Lake road, and you will find the same thing occurs there. You will find the statement in the report of the Minister of Railways that that road cost something like two and a half million dollars, and you will find that it is bonded for $3,800,000 ; and so on all along the line.
I suppose there is hardly a road in this country that is not bonded for double what the road is worth. In my humble judgment, it would be a very foolish thing for the government to go into a scheme of this kind, but, there is another system of controlling the roads. We have power by the Railway Act, under section 224 and some other sections, to regulate rates and see that there is no discrimination. This is all the control the people want. All that we require is to provide some machinery to make that provision effective. It may be said that we have the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, but the Railway Committee of the Privy Council is composed of men who are very busy, who have not time to take up all the cases that should come before them, and the business of the country is rapidly increasing. The carrying corporations are extending the lines of transportation, opening up new roads, and it is time that we had some authority that we could rely upon to bring the railways under control, and to do away with unjust discriminations. Now, I do not think the people of the country care very much whether the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the Grand Trunk Railway, or any other companies own the railways, or whether they operate them, [DOT] so long as the roads are under proper control, and so long as they are not oppressed by being charged excessive rates for carrying the products of the country from one part to the other. We have paid millions of dollars in subsidies to railway corporations in aid of the railways that have been built during the last few years, and not only have we paid millions of dollars in money, but we have given some sixty odd million acres of the best and most fertile lands in the North-west Territories to railway corporations, and I think it is not an unreasonable request to be made by the people, who really have the greatest interest in the soil of the west, that somebody should be appointed to control railway corporations and to see that the people are afforded a reasonable amount of relief.
I may say that I am not opposed to granting railway subsidies. I believe that in a new country like this it is impossible to have railways built into new portions of the country unless the government give


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is that the English Act ?


Mr. DAYIS.: Yes ; they were to hold office during good behaviour, one of the commissioners being a business man, another a railway man, and another a lawyer. So that you see that they appointed a railway commission years and years ago in Great Britain in the same way that we are asking to have a commission appointed in this country. In the United States, and we will be more interested, I suppose, because that country is close at hand and we know what is taking place there, nearly all the states of the union have had railway commissions. I have here, in my hand, the 23rd annual report of the Iowa State Railway Commission, and if any hon. gentleman will take the trouble to read this report, he will come to the conclusion that


Thomas Osborne Davis: the sooner we have a railway commission in this country the better it will be for all concerned, not only for the people, but for the railway corporations themselves, because, I suppose, there are cases where people complain without having justification for the complaints they make. We find that this is no new or radical proposal. In the United States they have two kinds of railway commissions ; in the old states, Massachusetts, for instance, they have what is called an advisory commission. An advisory commission is a commission which is appointed without power to arrange rates or settle disputes. They are appointed to arbitrate and advise as to disputes, and to make a report to the legislature, if a settlement has not been made, so that the legislature will then be in a position to legislate intelligently, and give relief to the people. In the western states they take a more advanced view ; Illinois led off, and the other states followed in the appointment of commissions with power to regulate freight rates, to settle disputes and to deal with complaints of discrimination, not only that, but to deal with any dispute that may arise between the individual and the railway corporation. I have here the report of the Iowa commission, showing in one case where they have settled a dispute between a railway corporation and grain shippers about the scarcity of cars. That is a thing that we are troubled with all the time in the North-west Territories. Again, there is a case of excessive rates charged which the commission settled. Again, the people complained that they were not getting sufficient facilities for the shipping and handling of grain, and this case was settled. There are two cases in which complaints were made by shippers that they were overcharged. These cases were settled. Another case involving the laying of a side track into an elevator was settled. We have, in the west, disputes as to getting side tracks laid in to elevators. There are several other cases besides those which I have mentioned which were settled in Iowa. Any person reading this report must come to the conclusion that such a commission as this would be a good thing for us to have in this country. In reference to a commission here, I would suggest it should be established on the same lines as those adopted in the western states, a commission with power to deal with all disputes between the individual and the railway corporation. Another thing I would suggest in reference to the functions of a railway commission in this country, is this : There is not the least doubt, as every hon. gentleman in this House knows, that a great deal of the time of the House, not only this year, but in years gone by, has been taken up in dealing with what are called ' straw charters.' Charter-mongers come here to get charters in the hope of being able to secure a subsidy. The

moment they have a charter and get the subsidy they have something to sell which has not cost them anything. They toil not, neither do they spin. It is high time that that sort of thing should be stopped, and that these charter-mongers should be choked off.
If we had a proper railway commission appointed we should have all applications for railway charters submitted to that commission, which would investigate at to whether there was necessity for the proposed roads being constructed, and on the report of the railway commission for or against, parliament could deal with the application intelligently. That railway commission could also report on the probable cost of the construction of the road, and then parliament could insert a clause empowering the incorporators to bond that road only for what it was likely to cost, so we would not have a repetition of the scandals in connection with the Calgary and Edmonton road and the Regina and Long Lake road in which people were enticed-to use a mild expression-to invest their money without any chance of getting it back. That was an injury to the credit of Canada. If all these applications for charters were referred to a competent commission we would have fewer applications here session after session. There are cases too in which legitimate railway companies ask for charters which should not be granted, because if you build a line parallel to an existing line the work will have to be divided between the competing lines, and somebody will have to pay the piper. If a line is paralleled in one portion of the country the people living on that line in another portion of the country will have to make up for the loss, and in days gone by the people of the North-west Territories and Manitoba have suffered in that respect. We feel strongly on this railway question in Manitoba and the Territories, and we have a right to do so because we have suffered for years and years from railway oppression and extortion. Nevertheless you have gentlemen, employed no doubt by railway corporations, travelling through the country and writing letters to the press trying to make people believe that there is no discrimination and that the people in one part of the country are treated just the same as the people in another part. In the North-west Territories we are some 2,000 miles from the head of ocean navigation at Montreal and close to 3,000 miles from the sea-board. The great problem with our people is as to how they are to get their products to the markets of the world so as to enable them to compete with people living in other localities. We do not expect to get our produce carried for nothing ; all we want is reasonable rates. We are prepared to pay just as much as they pay in any other portion of the Dominion, but when we are made to pay
double it is time for us to raise our voices against this oppression.
I have taken the trouble to prepare a few figures in connection with this discrimination. It has been said there is no discrimination in 'the west, but I am prepared to prove to the House and to the country that discrimination does exist there in connection with the carrying of our products. Look at the enormous freight rates we pay on wheat alone. We pay 14 cents per hundred pounds for carrying our wheat from the city of Winnipeg to Fort William or Port Arthur, a distance of 448 miles.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: It was 21 cents a few years ago.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Yes, that is true. Up to three years ago it was 17 cents a hundred pounds from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, and then the government of the day came to the relief of the settlers in that portion of the country, and in the arrangement they made for the building of the Crow's Nest Pass railway they got a reduction of 3 cents a hundred pounds on the freight rate. Let me tell the House that that comparatively small reduction, on the average wheat crop of the province of Manitoba amounted to something like $600,000 saved to the farmers. The production of wheat in that country is increasing by leaps and bounds and we may assume that if this increase continues, then in five years about one million dollars would be saved to the farmers of that country on account of this small reduction alone.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What distance did you say that wheat was hauled 7


Thomas Osborne Davis: About 448 miles. If we take into consideration that wheat is hauled by the Canada Atlantic and Parry Sound Railway, including water stretches from Chicago to Montreal for 4J cents a bushel, while we in the North-west have to pay 8f cents a bushel from Winnipeg to Fort William ; it ' will be seen that it was high time that the * people of Manitoba loaded themselves with ' liabilities to the extent of some $14,000,000 | in order to try and get relief.


Robert Lorne Richardson: cents a bushel for liauling it 448 miles. We liave been told that there is no discrimination in the west, but I have gone to the trouble to get the present western local tariff as well as the traders' tariff, and also the general tariff, because these gentlemen have two or three tariffs in the west ; they have a tariff for traders, and a tariff for the ordinary individual, and I cannot understand why one person wishing to ship a car-load of goods should be called upon to pay more because he is not a jobber.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do you mean car-load and part car-load lots.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Car-load lots.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Have they two distinctive tariffs by car-loads ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: They have two tariffs, one for the trader and another for the other man. Some goods are classified as No. 2 by local rate which are the same as No. 5 in carloads.
From Toronto to Winnipeg, a distance of 1,091 miles, groceries and goods of that kind, which are fifth class freight, pay 82 cents per hundred pounds, while from Winnipeg to Prince Albert, a distance of 609 miles, the rate for fifth class freight is 80 cents per hundred pounds. We pay in the west, within two cents a hundred pounds to carry goods 609 miles, of what the Toronto people pay to haul their goods 1,091 miles. Let us look at the condition of affairs on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am well aware that the government have not the same control over the Canadian Pacific Railway on the main line as they have on the branch lines, but it appears to me that the Canadian Pacific Railway management are charging these exorbitant rates to a greater extent on the branch lines where the government might be expected to step in and give the people relief. On the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Winnipeg to Calgary, a distance of 840 miles, the first class freight rate is 81.82 per hundred pounds and the second class, $1.57.


Mr. WALLACE.: Is that by car-loads or by smaller quantities ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: It is according to the way you send it, by car-loads or not. Fifth class would not be fifth class if sent at local rates. It is the ordinary rate for car-loads at local rates.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is in small quantities.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That does not make any difference for the purpose of my present argument. I am showing that on" the same class of goods and the same quantities sent


Thomas Osborne Davis: to different points, they sometimes charge more for the shorter distance than they do for the longer distance. From Winnipeg to Calgary, a distance of 840 miles,' the first-class rate is $1.82 per hundred pounds ; second class, $1.57 ; third class, $1.25 ; fourth class, 90 cents ; fifth class, 80 cents. Now, take the rate from Winnipeg to Prince Albert, a distance of 609 miles, according to the Canadian Pacific Railway folder, or some 230 miles less than the distance from Winnipeg to Calgary. The rates are : first class, $1.89, or 7 cents per hundred pounds more than from Winnipeg to Calgary : second class, $1.57, the same as to Calgary ; third class, $1.25 ; fourth class, 90 cents ; fifth class, 80 cents. I would have no objection if they charged the people of Calgary just as much as they charge the people of Prince Albert ; but wThen they charge the people of Prince Albei't 7 cents per hundred pounds more than the people of Calgary, though the distance is shorter by 2.30 miles, I think the people of Prince Albeit have good reason to kick.
Take lumber. The rate from British Columbia to all points in the Territories is 50 cents per hundred pounds. From British Columbia to Regina, from British Columbia to Prince Albert, or from British Columbia to Winnipeg, the rate is the same-50 cents per hundred pounds. I have been told on good authority by a gentleman in the business, that occasionally they send it to Fort William, 800 miles further on than Winnipeg, at the same rate. What position does that place the people of my district in ? It kills our local trade. We have three sawmills in Prince Albert, and if they want to ship lumber out they have to pay prohibitory rates, so that it is impossible for them to compete. I do not think that is a fair way to treat our people.
I have made a comparison of the maximum tariff on first-class goods west of Lake Superior with the maximum tariff of the Canada Atlantic Railway on first-class goods. The rate in the west for 30 miles is 27 cents, on 50 miles 35 cents, on 100 miles 54 cents, on 200 miles 80 cents, on 250 miles 92 cents, and on 450 miles $1.33 per hundred pounds. Compare these rates with what the people in eastern Canada have to pay. Between Ottawa and Depot Harbour, the maximum tariff rate on the Canada Atlantic, for 56 miles is 26 cents, for 102 miles 34 cents, for 200 miles 46 cents, for 254 miles 46 cents, as against 92 cents in Manitoba and the Territories for 250 miles. For 363 miles on the Canada Atlantic, the rate is also for 46 cents per hundred pounds.
We hear a great deal about the railroad monopolies of the United States. Gentlemen connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway try to make the people of this country believe that if the large railroad corporations of the United States got a footing in this country, our people would be bound

to suffer. It is all a question of sentiment. We know that the people of the United States are getting their work done by the railways for one-half of what the people of this country have to pay the Canadian Pacific Railway for the same work. These are the maximum tariff rates in the state of Iowa, fixed by commission : 30 miles, 17 T6 cents per hundred pounds ; 50 miles, 20 cents, as against 35 cents charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the west ; 100 miles, 24 cents, as against 54 cents in the west ; 200 miles 40 cents, as against 80 cents in the west ; 450 miles, 634 cents, as against $1.33 charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the west for performing the same service. And still we are told by those gentlemen who want to exclude competition from this country, that if we allow the American railroads to get a footing here, the country will be ruined. I hope to see the day when some of these American railroad corporations will get a footing in the country, so that we may get relief from these excessive charges, and that magnificent country west of Lake Superior may get a chance to develop. I do not see why the Canadian Pacific Railway corporation should own that country. Is it not enough that the people of this country gave that corporation $110,000,000 in lands and money, but we must hand over the whole country to them ? I hope the members of this House will see to it that when other companies seek for charters to build railways into that country, those charters shall be granted, notwithstanding what the Canadian Pacific Railway Company may say.
I have another statement which has been sent to me by the president of the Board of Trade of Prince Albert, Mr. F. O. Baker. He says the rate from Winnipeg to Prince Albert. 003 miles, on first-class goods, is $1.89, while the rate from Winnipeg to Regina, 356 miles on the main line, is $1.12, while on the branch line from Regina to Prince Albert, for 247 miles, we have to pay $1.15. In other words, we pay 3 cents more for 250 miles than the people of Regina pay for 356 miles. That is a clear case of discrimination against the town in which I live.
We have heard a great deal about the long haul, and I wish to draw the attention of the House to that phase of the question. Let us look at the rates on coal oil, which is a commodity not used so much in the towns and villages as by the farming population. From Petrolia to Winnipeg, a distance of 1,200 miles, the fifth-class rate is 61| cents per hundred pounds. From Winnipeg to Prince Albert, 609 miles, the rate is 65 cents. So that we are paying 31 cents more for hauling our coal oil 609 miles than is paid for sending it 1.200 miles. There is a case of discrimination. It might be supposed that you would get a lower rate from Petrolia to Prince Albert because of the long haul. But if you add the two
local rates together, from Petrolia to Winnipeg, and from Winnipeg to Prince Albert, they come to $1,261, whereas the through rate from Petrolia to Prince Albert is $1,374. or 11 cents more. In other words, you could take a car-load of coal oil from Petrolia to Winnipeg, unload it there, load it again on the cars and ship it through to Prince Albert, and you would save 11 cents per hundred pounds. And yet, we are told that the people of Prince Albert have no discrimination to complain of.
I have taken this from the Toronto Globe, and I believe it to be true. It certainly has never been contradicted. From Brantford, Eng., to Toronto, the rate on wool is 17 cents per 100 pounds. Compare this with the rate from Crane Lake, N.W.T., to Toronto of $1.50 per 100 pounds, and the excessive charge imposed on the people of the North-west Territories is at once apparent. How is it possible for the people of that country to live and pay such exorbitant freight rates ?
Take the rates on cattle, the largest industry in the North-west Territories, and a very large one in Manitoba. From Prince Albert to Montreal the rate is $180 per car. and the value of a car-load of cattle is $680. I am not grumbling at this, but want to make a comparison. The rate from Toronto to Prince Albert on a car-load of apples, the average value of which is $190, is something like $375 now, and two or three years ago it was $518. I paid $518 freight on a car-load of apples from Seaforth to Prince Albert. When I ordered the apples. I had no idea that I would be charged such an exorbitant rate.


Mr. KAULBACH.: How much did you pay for the apples 7


Thomas Osborne Davis: $190, and I paid $518 freight. As a consequence, I lost about $250 on the car-load, and I did not go into the apple business any more. This is a matter which affects, not only the people of the Territories and Manitoba, but of the eastern provinces as well. When you have good crops of apples in the eastern provinces, you find it difficrdt to dispose of them, and they are often left to rot on the ground. But if reasonable freight rates were charged, you could easily dispose of them in the Territories and Manitoba. AVe produce wheat and cattle, but we cannot produce fruit, and are willing to exchange. But if a man has to pay $5 a barrel freight on apples, you can easily see that the average farmer cannot afford to indulge in luxuries of that kind in order to enable the Canadian Pacific Railway to pay its president $50,000 a year and the rest of the officials in proportion
In the early history of the country we expected to have to pay rather high freight rates, but it is high time these rates should be reduced. We hear a great deal about

American railways coming in to oppress our people. Let me show what the people of Massachusetts have to pay for hauling freight per ton over their railways and show you how these rates were reduced from year to year. The following statement gives the freight and passenger rates :


MASSACHUSETTS.
[Stage Direction]
Average Freight Rates per Ton per Mile.
Year.
1871.
1872.
1873.
1874.
1875.
1876.
1877.
1878.
1879.
1880. 1881. 1882.
1883.
1884.
1885..
1886..
1887..
1888..
1889..
1890..
1891..
1892..
1893..
1894..
1895..
Rate. $3 11 2 81 2 75 2 64 2 45 2 17 2 07 1 92 1 91 1 82 1 71 1 71 1 72 1 64 1 59 1 64 1 62 1 50 1 55 1 45 1 42 1 36 1 39 1 33 1 28

[Stage Direction]
Average Passenger Fares per Mile.
Rate.
Year.
1871.
1872.
1873.
1874.
1875.
1876.
1877.
1878.
1879..
1880.. 1881.. 1882..
1883..
1884..
1885..
1886..
1887..
1888..
1889..
1890..
1891..
1892..
1893..
1894..
1895..
[Stage Direction]
In the Territories we pay three cents and four cents passenger rates per mile, and up to last year we paid five cents per mile on the Regina Long Lake and Saskatchewan Road, yet this country has paid that road three times more than it has cost. We gave
it 6,400 acres of the finest lands in the coun- ___________ „„vv.rai3J.UI allll
try per mile. They will not take ordinary | we had a commission appointed to wipe out Mr. DAVIS.
land, and I understand there is a suit pending because they refuse to take the lands offered and want the choicest. Besides 6,400 acres per mile, they get $80,000 per year for twenty years for carrying the mails, and they have never earned more than $2,000 or $3,000 a year in that service. Take the lands at $3 an acre-and they have not sold one acre at less, and some they have sold as high as $6 or $7 an acre-that makes $19,200 per mile as the value of the land, taking its lowest value of $3 per acre. Then take the cash subsidy of $80,000 a year for twenty years, and you will see that this corporation has received not less than $20,000 per mile.
Robert Lorne Richardson: I have seen an estimate which figures out that the $80,000 per mile for twenty years capitalized is equal to $6,000 per mile.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I am making a very low estimate. The value of the lands is $19,200, and the bon. member for Lisgar tells us that the value of the mail subsidy is $6,000 per mile, which would bring the total subsidy up to $25,000 per mile. What did the road cost ? Take the report of its cost issued by the company, and you can rest assured that when they made that report they made it so as to show as large a cost as possible. It shows that the road cost $10,000 a mile, and the people have given them actually $20,000 a mile. I suppose their heavy charges for freight and passengers are to meet the interest on the bonds, and it appears they have bonded the road for $3,800,000, although it only cost them $2,500,000. Into whose pockets the difference went I do not know, but I do not think it is fair that we should be called on to pay the interest on money that did not go into the construction of the road at all, but into the pockets of the speculators.
In 1895, the last year for which I have a return, the people of the state of Massachusetts only had to pay 1-78 cents per mile passenger rate, and yet we are told by interested parties that if you allow American railways and capital to come into Canada our people will be oppressed. For my part I would like to see more competition, and hope the day will come when we will have it.
It is high time the government took some action with reference to this commission. There is an agitation for the establishment of a railway commission going on in the country and gathering force as it goes. All the leading papers in the country are taking this question up, and it is one the government cannot ignore. They will have to take some action and take it in the near future. Let them appoint a board of railway commissioners for only four or five years if you like. Such commissions have been working in the United States for twenty-five or thirty years and have proved successful, and if

the discrimination and force the railway corporations to impose fair and moderate charges, as we have the power to do under the Railway Act, you would soon find the cry for government ownership and control of railways disappearing. All this agitation for government ownership is due to the fact that the people are desirous that something should be done to relieve them of the oppressive railways rates which are now charged.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Before that motion is put, I would like to offer one or two observations. I may say that after a study of the railway question carefully for the last four or five years, I am scarcely so sanguine as my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), that the appointment of a railway commission would accomplish all that he thinks it would. I will tell you why I think so. In the first place, the railways have been stocked and bonded for an amount far in excess of their cost, in many cases double and treble the cost of the roads. Now, they always maintain that before you should allow government to regulate the rates on railroads, you must allow interest to be earned on all the stock and on all the bonds that the road carries. They will meet you with this proposition, that there are vested interests, that capitalists in Europe have purchased these bonds and this stock in good faith, and that it is only reasonable to allow a proper interest to be earned on this stock and bonds. There is another reason why I think a railway commission would be largely ineffective. When the contract for the Canadian Pacific Railway was made in 1881, exactly twenty years ago on the 15th of last month, a provision was inserted whereby the company was allowed to earn 10 per cent on the capital actually invested in the road before the government could exercise any control of the rates. That is a statutory provision which would meet the commission at once. If this railway commission were appointed it would be absolutely unable to control the rates on the Canadian Pacific Railway until they have earned 10 per cent on the capital actually invested.
So here is one difficulty that would meet you, the determination of the amount of capital that was invested in that enterprise. Now, in order to get over that difficulty I moved a resolution in this House some four sessions ago for the appointment of a commission by parliament to ascertain the actual cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway in order that parliament, if it desired to secure control of the rates, might know when the company earned 10 per cent on the money actually invested. My own recollection is that the gross earnings of the Canadian Pacific Raiway run up to nearly thirty million dollars, and that the actual
earnings to-day are a good deal more than 10 per cent, probably thirty per cent, I do not know but 100 per cent on anything they have put in. I wish the House clearly to understand this proposition. Why should the Canadian Pacific Railway be allowed to earn 10 per cent, or any per cent whatever, on capital that the Canadian people have put into the enterprise ? As the hon. member for Saskatchewan pointed out. although he did not give you all the facts, the Canadian people gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company twenty-five million dollars in cash, and it handed over completed railroads, the Thunder Bay branch, the Yale and Cariboo section, and a section in eastern Canada, all of which had cost the Canadian people thirty-five million dollars. That is to say, the government made practically a cash payment to that company of sixty million dollars. In addition to that, we gave them twenty-five million acres of the best lands in that vast country ; and so particular is this company with regard to the selection of these lands that the Minister of the Interior told us the other day they have declined to accept all their land grant because they are very anxious to obtain the very best land in that country. What is the result ? The member for Saskatchewan told us a moment ago that the land grants on the Regina and Long Lake Railway have brought $3, $4 and $5 an acre, they have never sold an acre for less. I was able to show on the floor of parliament last session that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company never sold an acre of land, in Manitoba, at least, for less than an average of $4 or $5 an acre. But let us take the land grant at $3 an acre, and we find that in addition to giving that company sixty million dollars in cash practically, we gave them seventy-five million dollars worth of land, or a total subsidy to that company of practically $135,000,000. not speaking of all the other concessions that we have given them.
Mr. Speaker, let me state that the Canadian Pacific Railway syndicate's own estimate of the whole cost of construction of that railway was $91,500,000, and that included $10,000,000 for equipment. Now, having given the company something in the neighbourhood of forty-three million dollars more than the actual cost of the road, why should we be called upon to stick to that clause allowing them to earn 5 per cent on what it actually cost ? Why should the country be obliged to pay, in high freight rates, 10 per cent on the money that the country actually gave to the company ? My contention in parliament four or five years ago was that we should appoint a commission to ascertain if that company spent $1 of its own money in the construction of that road; and If that company did not spend $1, then,

haying ascertained that fact, we would he able to say :	You shall not be allowed to
earn 10 per cent on what the country gave you, and we shall take control of your rates. If parliament would adopt the suggestion I made a few years ago for the appointment of that commission to ascertain exactly what the company had put into the enterprise, then I think we would be able to control the rates on this vast transcontinental road. I maintain that until you are able to control the rates on the Canadian Pacific Railway, your railway commission is in a large measure bound to be ineffective.
The only cure for the transportation question that I can see, is in government ownership and control of railroads. But I do not think at the present time that the finances of this country, would warrant the government in purchasing all the railroad systems of this country. I believe that the government should do what I urged on the floor of parliament two sessions ago. The government now own the Intercolonial Railway, which they have recently extended into Montreal, and I believe if it could secure control of the Parry Sound Railroad, and then acquire control of the Rainy River Railway, and get access into those vast wheat fields of the west, we could effectively control the transportation question of this country, and it would not cost a large amount either. It would not require a great deal to control the Parry Sound road up to Parry Sound, and afterwards securing railway communication from the head of lake navigation into the wheat fields of the west, then the question would be largely solved. If the people of that great country are able to send their products away at decent rates, then I do not think there will be much to complain of. If the government controls one road and is able to fix the rate, then all other roads would be obliged to meet the rates which the government makes on its road.
When the question was before parliament two sessions ago, when these vast subsidies were given to the Rainy River Railway,
I myself, seconded by the member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) moved a number of resolutions relating to that subject. I wished to have the government appoint an officer who should superintend the construction of that railroad, in order that we might ascertain exactly what it cost-so that, if parliament desired, at any later date, to put into effect the government ownership of even one railway, it would be able to acquire this road with the knowledge of the actual cost. And I added in the resolution that it should be acquired at the cost price, less the subsidies which the country had given to the road. That resolution, I am sorry to say, did not carry. I believe that one reason why it did not carry was Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
that the House was not fully seized of the importance of the question. I believe that lion, members had not given sufficient study to the transportation question, and did not understand the true nature of the proposition I put forward at that time. I moved another resolution-and I think there are signs throughout the country that the people are beginning to understand the importance of the question-that the rates on that road should never be higher than would produce 6 per cent on the cost. The crux of the transportation question is the limiting of capitalization. You must not allow charges, fixed or otherwise, to appear in these enterprises more than is actually necessary. If you limit the stocking and bonding to the actual necessities of the case, it is easy to see how you protect the producer, for you can then control the rates; you will not be obliged to allow charges to pay a percentage of 4, 6 or 10 per cent on capital that never went into the road. What has happened in regard to the Rainy River-road on which we made such a strong fight ? In addition to the $4,000 per mile which the legislature of Ontario granted to that enterprise, in addition to the $0,400 in cash that this parliament granted, making-in all $10,400 a mile given by the public to assist that road, we find that we also gave power to stock this road for $28,000 a mile, and to bond it for $20,000 a mile. So that, for all time, that road is loaded with a capitalization of $48,000 per mile, and for all time the settlers will oe obliged to pay the interest in freight rates on that enormous capitalization. And what are we told here to-day ? We are told that the Manitoba government is coming to the relief of this company by guaranteeing the bonds of the road for $20,000 a mile. What would be the result ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does that include the whole mileage ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Two hundred and ninety miles.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It does not cover any portion of the mileage of the Rainy River Railway, does it ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: It covers the mileage, the hon. minister will understand. from the western terminus of the Port Arthur, Duluth and Western, a point known as Stanley station. The company that own that through road bought the Port Arthur, Duluth and Western. It goes two hundred and ninety miles west to Fort Frances, and the province of Manitoba, judging from the reports, is about to guarantee the bonds on that section for $20,000 a mile.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is any portion of that in Ontario ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: It is all in Ontario. The point I make, the hon. minister apprehends, is that the country gave $10,400 a mile in cash, and the people also will give this 4 per cent guarantee on $20,000 a mile, so that the people will have practically given in cash and undertaken to give in a guarantee, as good as cash, $30,400 a mile. And, as I tell you, the result is that for all time the people of that country are obliged to pay high freight rates on this over-capitalization. I believe the time has come when there are sufficient people in this country who understand this question to say that unless we limit the stocking and bonding to the actual necessities of the road we shall never be able to exercise any effective control over freight rates. I have reason to believe that a strong attempt will be made this session to limit the stocking and bonding of railway lines in order that a commission such as my hon. friend (Mr. Davis) moves for may be of some effect.
Now, I am not prepared to say that a railway commission such as is called for in the motion would not be of considerable advantage. Probably, in doing away with discrimination, in regulating long hauls and short hauls, in regulating rates over branch and trunk lines, it might be of some effect. I believe, and I think it likely the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) agrees with me, with the 10 per cent clause as it is, and with the lines over-capitalized as they are, even with a railway commission, we shall not be able to exei'cise any effective control. Why, Sir, let me give two or three facts with regard to what this country has given for its railway system. The people of Canada have given in cash, up to the present time-and I include the municipalities, the provincial-governments and the Dominion government -$223,000,000 in cash for railways. From what the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) told us the other day, it appears that the country has contributed 60,000,000 acres of land for the construction of railways. You will agree with me that, in view of the statements made by my hon. friend (Mr. Davis), and in view of the facts produced in this House from time to time, $3 an acre is a very moderate estimate of the value of this land. Estimating on that basis, you will find that the people of this country have given $403,000,000 for the construction of railways. Just let the hon. members of this House pause and think for a moment what that means. It means that the people have given far more than would build the entire system of railways in this country. And what do we own ? We own the Intercolonial Railway, which, I presume, actually cost about $25,000,000-we paid $50,000,000 for it, but it was not worth that 27
amount of money. Think of this expenditure in connection with the proposition that we shall attempt to regulate rates by appointing a commission. We cannot do it. The only way in which rates can be effectively controlled in this country is for the government to own and control one road on which there shall be no over-capitalization, and on which fair rates shall be charged, based on the actual cost of the road. When the government takes that position, I assert, we shall have the transportation question effectively solved. As I have said, I am not one who says that the country should, at present, go into the enterprise of controlling all the railroads of the country. But, I would be willing to go even that far, if we cannot get justice in any other way. Look at the example of the Australasian colonies. According to an article in the North American Review that I read recently these colonies have paid $600,000,000 for their railways. At present those railways charge more favourable rates than ours do, rates in accordance with the condition of the settlers, and they are able to pay 3 per cent on that vast sum of money, and pay operating expenses as well. If that can be done in the Australasian colonies, why can it not be done in Canada ? It is perfectly true that we have made this bad start; it is perfectly true that we have paid this vast sum of money and have practically no return for it. But, surely, Sir, we are not going to perpetuate this colossal error. The time has come when the transportation question is knocking at the door of parliament, and unless the people's representatives deal with this question, I want to say the people will deal with their representatives later on. I shall not oppose the motion, Mr. Speaker, because, as I said, I believe some good may come of the regulation of these rates in various ways. I shall listen with great interest to any debate that may occur on this question, and particularly to the views which the government may give us at the present time. I may say, before I sit down, that I think if anything is to be done in this matter it ought to be done soon. We have been led to expect from session to session that we would have this railway commission appointed, and I think it would be gratifying to members of this House, and also to the country, to know that the question was soon to be settled one way or the other and not keep it dangling before the public any longer.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of offering any remarks upon this question until I heard of the deplorable state of Canada in a railway sense from the two hon. gentlemen who have been discussing it. I have got up to say that I feel quite differently about it. I cannot see any reason why such a pessimistic view should be taken of our present



transportation facilities and of the position of Canada in regard to its railways and to the transportation question. I did not suppose that on this motion we would be going into the whole railway and transportation question, because the question involved in the motion is only one of the very important propositions in connection with our | railway transportation system. I am at a loss to understand the cause of the grievous state of affairs that these hon. gentlemen seem to have discovered in regard to our railways, not that I am interested any more than they are in railways. Since I have been in this House I have had no interest in railways ; I have none to-day any more than they have. I have had some experience of the difficulties of getting railways built in this country, because the only railways that I have been interested in were roads of a local character where we wanted to build them through to different parts of the province of Ontario, some years ago and some very recently. We had very great difficulty in accomplishing this. How did we manage to get them ? Something like the manner in which the Canadian Pacific Railway was got. The most of them were of a much smaller pattern. We wanted to get railways through the old-settled parts of the country where the pioneers had gone in years ago with their axes and yoke of oxen and hewed out their homes. These pioneers had for fifty or seventy-five years been taxed for carrying on all the public affairs of the country. We found it impossible to get these roads constructed except upon the principle of the people helping themselves. The people offered bonuses. There is scarcely a township between Lake Erie and Georgian Bay that has not contributed by bonus to obtain railways. Why ? Hid they do it to give away their money ? Did they do it on any other principle than a mere business proposition ?
It was a business proposition. You can be sure that the hardy pioneers who built up the country, and who were a long time without transportation facilities, having discovered that railways would be a great boon to them, would not have given away their hard-earned dollars unless they thought I there would be some return. Why did they give away anything ? Because it was found impossible to get money to build railways [DOT]otherwise. So they offered what are known as bonuses and the government of Ontario, before the Dominion government entertained the proposition at all, established a system of giving bonuses to railways, municipalities following that up. But, money in addition to the bonuses was required, and I have had considerable experience in helping to secure the construction of railways in that part of the country, not, however, in the way of making money out of them.
I happened to be one of those gentlemen who did not have much money to put into such enterprises, but who tried to find Mr. TISDALE.
means of raising, with the assistance of the municipalities and the government, the balance of the money required. The government and the municipalities knew that they were giving this money to enable the balance of the money to be obtained which was always a hard proposition. These hon. gentlemen who have spoken say that it was very unwise and that great difficulties have resulted. I totally disagree with them when they say that it makes a great deal of difference how much stock or bonds are issued. It did not make scarcely any difference for the reason that the propositions in those days were left largely to the promoters. We did not care so much whether the promoters got permission to issue a lot of bonds or a few bonds, a large amount of stock or a small amount. We were satisfied whichever way they could work the scheme as long as we got the road after having subscribed our money as taxpayers. Go through the country to-day, even through Manitoba and the North-west Territories, where there is so much talk about the Canadian Pacific Railway, and ask the people there if they would have these railways taken away from them and get their money back. They would laugh at you and very properly. I want to go roughly and quickly over this question. Apart altogether from what has been given by the country or for what railways have been bonded, the money that has been put into railways in Canada in addition has never returned \\ per cent to the people who put it up. That is a proposition which, if hon. gentlemen will look into it, will be borne out. Take the Grand Trunk Railway, for instance, the road most heavily loaded with bonds, stock and preferences. Why was it so ? Why did we from time to time help it ? Because, if the government of Canada, in times past, had not come forward and given assistance it would have entirely disappeared. Millions of money had been sent across the sea for investment in the road, and widows and orphans had put their money into it in the belief that they were going to get a big return. I remember once in the history of the road that .$10,000,000 of common stock was sold at 10 per cent or ten cents on the dollar and the company induced people to believe that they would get big returns that they bought it. If it had not been for that financial transaction, away back in the history of the road, the Grand Trunk Railway would have been forced to shut up. That was the pioneer road in Ontario and Quebec.
I remember how glad I was to see it. 1 had never seen a railway train and I had never seen any cars, except a few on the old Northern Railway which ran out of Toronto. That stock is worth less to-day, about five or six cents on the dollar, than half a century ago when these people bought it. The government had to help the company out of a hole with several millions of dollars.

Take the actual money which has been put into the road and there are many millions upon which not one cent of return in interest has been obtained. The bonded debt and stock were so large, looking at it in this day, that it would be absurd to try and float a scheme of that kind now. But it cost the government of Canada a good deal. That was the pioneer road and there are thousands of people across the sea, or their descendants, who will never receive a cent of return on their investment. It is well that we should look upon the other side of the picture. I am one of those who believe that the first business is to get the railway, secondly, to get it on the best terms possible and don't bother your head too much about those who undertake to raise the balance whether they have bonded it for much or little. I will tell you why. Under our law, except in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the amount of the bonded stock has nothing to-do with the fixing of the rates. If a case is brought before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, the question to be decided there is what is the proper rate, and not what is the rate charged.


Robert Lorne Richardson: How would you ascertain a proper rate ?


David Tisdale: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson) can answer, but it is one of the most difficult problems I know of. Some hon. gentlemen assume that the government or a railway commission can in some way decide off-hand, but these gentlemen have not studied the question or they would think differently. How are you going to say what is a fair rate ? I tell you that you will have to get an education that no man in this House has to-day before you can decide that.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I can tell you.


David Tisdale: I have paid some attention to the question ; I have consulted men who have devoted their lives to it and I have read books upon it, and all agree that it is a most difficult problem, although I will agree with these lion, gentlemen that you have to watch the railways. But look at the condition of things in Canada. The fact is that the farmer in the most remote part of Ontario can land his produce in Liverpool cheaper than the farmer in Wales can send it to London. What do these gentleman say to that ? The truth is that the people of Canada wanted railways and were not afraid to assume responsibilities to get railways, and were willing to give men a fair margin of profit who took the risk of raising the necessary money to build these railways. There is not a country of the same population under heaven that has a better water or rail transportation system than has Canada. I just wish to say that, 271
in order to relieve myself of the depression which I might experience by listening to the pessimistic views of some gentlemen in this House. I made up my mind to say something upon the other side of the question. Let me say one word about the Canadian Pacific Railway and about this 10 per cent. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) remember the difficulty there was in getting anybody to undertake the Canadian Pacific Railway ? Does he remember how earnestly and honestly the two political parties in the early days of that tremendous undertaking were concerned about that work; and does he remember that its initiation and successful carrying into effect would have paralyzed any small nation except Canada ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson) talked to-day about the lands in the North-west and he counts up their value by the millions. But how much were those lands worth before the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed ? Why, we have under our control the alternate sections which, even if we gave for nothing to settlers who would go in there and develop them, are still a most valuable asset. I believe, Sir, that we made a good bargain with the Canadian Pacific Railway. What if we did give the Canadian Pacific Railway several millions, have we not a return for it ? I tell you that the enhanced credit of Canada at home and abroad by the successful carrying out of the Canadian Pacific Railway, is worth twice the number of millions we invested in it.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale), stated that our North-west lands were worth nothing before the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed. Does he not think that if the government built that road themselves with the money they gave the Canadian Pacific Railway that those lands would be just as valuable today ?


David Tisdale: Certainly, but if the hon. gentleman had a political part to take in this House in those early days as he has to-day, would he have dared to say that Canada should have assumed that burden ? He dare not. The best men of both political parties, men who knew as much in those days as the best of us know to-day, agreed that things should have been done as they were done and the people of the country were satisfied. Had Canada not made that bargain her credit would not have been such in the interim as to enable her to carry out the other immense public works of the country. By giving the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway to men who could raise the money abroad, the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed and the chances are that it might not have been constructed otherwise. You have to draw a distinction between things as they existed then and things as they exist at the present time. I will not

be any meaner as a public man than I am as a private citizen, and I say that even if we had made, which I deny, a bad bargain with tlie Canadian Pacific Railway, yet it was made in broad day light by the representatives of the people of Canada, and the bargain should be maintained to the letter. If we act in good faith we will maintain our self-respect and have a higher standing as a nation than if we act in bad faith, even though we made money by doing so. Whether it was a wise bargain' or not we should stick to it, and although we did cancel part of the contract, yet I believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway agreed to it at the time. I am no defender of the Canadian Pacific Railway people, and I have no reason to be particularly friendly with them. My interest has been in the railways in my own province, and if I have been more friendly to one railway than the other it has been to the old Grand Trunk which was the pioneer road in the older provinces, and which enabled us to build these local roads and to turn them over to a company that could handle them as we could not. It is to the credit of the Canadian Pacific Railway that they have gone outside of the mere operating of their main line, because had they done nothing more they would never have paid a cent on the money invested. But they have their telegraph lines, and their sleeping-cars, and their steamship lines, all auxiliaries to the main line and the earnings of which go into the same treasury and enable them to pay dividends. If there was nothing but the bare Canadian Pacific Railway, then notwithstanding all the money we gave them, I doubt if they would today be able to pay 2 per cent on the actual money they raised. Well, Sir, there are men who fought me in 3871 on the political question as to whether it was a wise thing to make the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and have the road built, and I am glad I have lived to see them recant the views they then held. The prime minister of the province of Ontario ; one of the brightest men in that province-and I say it though he is politically opposed to me-he has acknowledged the mistake he made in opposing the Canadian Pacific Railway in the early days. I am not afraid to stand up here and bear testimony to a great corporation that has carried ou an immense work under the greatest difficulties, and has made a brillant record for this country. Let me tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson) that in my opinion this railway commission might not be the unmixed blessing he thinks. We have evidences on every side that there is going to be discussion on this railway commission question in this parliament.
I have lately consulted a report of the commission that was appointed some years ago to consider this question. That commission was composed of able men, with Sir Alexander Galt as chairman. They took Mr. TISDALE.
the best expert evidence they could obtain as to the most efficient tribunal that would be available to control rates, railway disputes and similar matters; and they recommended the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. I think that body has administered its duties fairly well. I supported it when the Conservative party were in power, and I have supported it just as strongly since hon. gentlemen who are opposed to me politically have had charge of it. Why did the commission prefer that tribunal ? It would have several good features. It would be sure to be composed of able men, from whichever party they came ; and not only able men, but men responsible directly to the people for their places and for the way they administered their trust. They were given plenary powers. They had the absolute power to enforce their decisions, and even if necessary to order out a force for that purpose. It is impossible to have any other tribunal equal to it in these respects. You could not vest such powers in a railway commission, because it would be a reversal of our constitution to do so. Therefore, I sympathize with the members of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council in wishing to compel them to retain their present powers. I am quite sure they would be willing to resign the duties imposed upon them, and to place them upon other shoulders, but I do not think those duties would be as promptly or satisfactorily attended to. Further, there would be great difficulty in getting three men qualified to act on a railway commission. In the United States they have sometimes had these railway commissions, they have sometimes abolished them, and they have sometimes brought them back. So far as I am concerned, I am quite content with a Railway Committee of the Privy Council, composed of my political opponents, rather than relegate to a railway commission such as we could choose such powers as we could confer upon it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The hon. gentleman did not understand me to give an unqualified endorsement to the appointment of a railway commission ?


David Tisdale: I give an unqualified fealty to the present tribunal in preference to a commission. Having thus expressed myself, I do not wish hon. gentlemen to suppose that I do not think it wise to have this discussion. I do not want them to suppose that while I disagree with them, I am finding fault with them in any way. I am glad to see them bring up these questions for discussion, because that is the way to get light. But I prefer to go slow, and to hold by what we have found to be good rather than to take the chances of an untried experiment.


Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: Mr. Speaker, this very important subject has been pretty thoroughly threshed out in

this House, not only this afternoon, but in previous sessions, and I had no idea that there was any possibility of a difference of opinion upon it anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. I had not thought that there was any person who would get up and earnestly combat the advisability of appointing some additional body, different from anything we have in the country at the present time, to regulate the operations of the railways. But the sentiments which have been expressed by the bon. gentleman who has just sat down (Hon. Mr. Tisdale), indicate that there is an opposition in the country and in this House to the idea of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis). I notice that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) applied the term pessimist to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson.)


David Tisdale: I did not apply to any individual, nor to this proposition. The hon. gentleman misunderstood me.


Thomas Walter Scott: I understood the hon. gentleman to apply the term to those who hold the ideas expressed in this resolution. I am one of those myself. I think the hon. gentleman himself is a worse pessimist than we are, because we express the view that certain conditions may be improved. I do not understand that the hon. gentleman disputed the facts set out by the hon. member for Saskatchewan and the hon. member for Lisgar ; but he has no idea that any improvement in existing conditions is possible. Therefore, I think he is the worse pessimist. One opinion the hon. gentleman expressed was that if was impossible under our constitution for such a body as that suggested to be created and to perform any valuable service. To meet that point, I think it is only necessary to refer to one of the facts stated by the hon. member for Saskatchewan-the fact that in the mother country, the land from which we get our constitution, some such body as that suggested was created, and existed for a number of years, and is still in operation. If it is not impossible in England, it cannot be impossible in Canada, for our constitution is very similar to that of Great Britain. Another point which the hon. gentleman raised was the difficulty in the way of reducing freight rates, owing to the very low interest which stockholders in railway companies have been able to reap since railways have been operated in this country. That is perfectly true, I believe, even of some of the lines of railway in the North-west Territories which have been referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Saskatchewan and the hon. member for Lisgar. Take, for instance, the Calgary and Edmonton road. I believe the stockholders in that road, at least the present managers, are having great difficulty in earning sufficient from the operation of the road to pay the interest on
the existing bonds. It is perfectly true that these stockholders are in this difficulty, that they cannot get a fair rate of interest on their investment. But what is the reason ? It is to be found in the insane method by which the roads were built and the corporations created. If the stockholders have difficulties to meet, certainly there were some promoters who had no difficulty at all in making a very good rate of interest on their investment, because, as has been stated, the Calgary and Edmonton road was constructed in such a manner that its promoters did not put a single cent into it, and were able besides to put into their pockets an amount almost equal to that which the road cost. The country kindly gave the promoters, not only the amount which the road cost, but a duplicate amount to put into their pockets.
This is not a new question, but one which lias been pretty thoroughly and widely discussed. The conditions existing with respect to excessive and discriminating freight rates are pretty generally admitted. Even the hon. gentleman who last spoke did not dispute any of the statements made by the two hon. gentlemen who preceded him ; and admitting the facts, it is evident that the government will have to take the matter up and try and devise a remedy. This subject has been already discussed this session.
I am bound to admit that I am inclined to a certain extent, to favour some of the views expressed here since this session opened, by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), who is not here this afternoon, and quite ready to admit that I am in favour of the principle of government ownership and operation of railways in Canada. But I must also confess that I lack some of the faith with which my hon. friend from East York is blessed. I lack faith in the idea that $2 taken out of the treasury of Canada would be sufficient to secure government control of all the railways in Canada, and I possibly lack a little of the faith of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), who has spoken this afternoon. I have very grave doubts as to whether government ownership is a practical immediate remedy. While the people in the Territories are suffering from excessive railway rates, they are also suffering from lack of railroads. While one of the needs of the North-west Territories is lower freight rates, another is a greater mileage of railways. We have settlements in that country, which have been waiting seventeen or eighteen years for railway communication, and which to-day are still distant sixty or seventy miles from any railway. Unless this parliament is willing this year or next year to accept the principle of government ownership and operation of railways and apply that principle immediately, I would not confine myself to advocating that remedy alone. I hope and trust that, with the assistance of the Minister of

Railways, some of tliose people who have been waiting for railway communication during so many years, and who settled under the definite promise, given by those in authority at that time, that railway communication would be furnished them at an early day, will find their expectations realized very shortly.
The hon. gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Tisdale) did not dispute any of the facts presented by the two hon. gentlemen who preceded him. It is entirely unnecessary for me to take up the time of the House by supplementing these facts. I will confine myself to relating one instance which came under my own notice. Some months ago a firm in Vancouver ordered a piece of machinery from Glasgow, Scotland, and about the same time a firm in Regina ordered an identical piece of machinery from the same people manufactured in the very same place. Would you believe it, Sir, when I tell you that the piece of machinery laid down in Regina cost in freight within a few cents of $100 more than the piece of machinery laid down in Vancouver, 1,500 miles farther away. That is an instance of what the people in the North-west Territories have to complain of.
One of the points raised by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), which would tend to lessen our faith in the proposition submitted by the non. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), namely, the establishment of a railway commission, is the existence of what is known as the 10 per cent clause in the agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the government. That is something which must remain there until eliminated by purchase or some other means, and which would limit the power that a railway commission would have over the railway company. But even taking that objection into account, there is in Manitoba and the North-west a considerable mileage of railways not covered by that contract and to which, consequently, that 10 per cent clause does not apply. 'l do not think I am very wide of the mark when 1 say that there are probably a thousand miles of railway west of Lake Superior, between Lake Superior and the Rocky Mountains, to which that clause does not apply.
If the statements made by the hon. member for Saskatchewan respecting rates on the branch line from Regina to Prince Albert are true, then there is good reason, even though the commission could not touch the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to consider whether a commission should not be appointed to control rates on the thousand miles of road not under the ten pel cent clause. However. I was somewhat surprised to hear the objection raised by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), because I recollect that last year or the year before, when some other railway contract was up in this House for discussion, he suggested inserting in the contract a provision


Thomas Walter Scott: embodying exactly the principle embodied in this ten per cent clause. He went over the ground this afternoon establishing the fact that my recollection was accurate and that he had moved for the insertion of this provision limiting the returns to six per cent- the difference between six per cent and ten per cent being not one of principle, but of detail. I do not intend to take up the time of the House at greater length. But if this House and the government admit the facts presented, they must, in all reason, apply their minds to find a remedy. If this House and the government state that government ownership does not afford an immediate, a practicable remedy, then let us be told what is such a remedy. If the government and the House hold that such a commission as is now suggested will not constitute a practicable and effective remedy, then let us be told in what way an adequate remedy may be found. Surely if we admit the conditions, if we admit the fact of these discriminations imposed upon the people of the west-and if what the newspapers state be true, the evil does not exist exclusively in the west, but the people of the eastern provinces have reason also to complain- it is the duty of this government and the duty of this parliament to find a remedy and apply it as speedily as possible.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: It is not necessary to add anything to what has been said in proof of the necessity of a railway commission whose duty it would be to adjust fairly the rates as between shippers and as between different localities. All I wish to say is, that while a railway commission is necessary, in my humble opinion, towards remedying the present conditions, it does not and cannot, in the nature of things, provide a complete remedy for those conditions. Some of those conditions, I am afraid, have gone beyond remedy. But the fact that there are or may be such conditions as cannot be remedied makes it all the more necessary that we should provide against the recurrence of like conditions in all eases in the future over which we have control, and with the responsibility for which we are charged. The point has probably been alluded to by other speakers, but I wish to emphasize it, that the great difficulty we have, or shall have, in dealing with the question of rates on our railroad system is the fact that the railroads of the country have been permitted to be overloaded with indebtedness. In view of that circumstance, and in view of the facts laid before the House, I desire to place before hon. members the great and urgent necessity of providing against over-capitalization of all railroads chartered by this House in future. I hold that if this House allows railroads to be bonded on the basis of their possible earning power, instead of requiring that they should be bonded only on the basis of their cost, this House cannot

afterwards come in and regulate the rates below the point that will permit those roads to earn a fair interest on the amount of indebtedness which has been incurred with the consent of this House. We should provide in all railroad charters hereafter granted that indebtedness should not be allowed beyond the cost of the road. Then, we pay for what we get and we get what we pay for. We know that we cannot have railroads without money. Our complaint against present conditions is not that we are required to pay interest on the cost of the roads, but it is that we are required to pay interest on double and treble the cost of the roads ; and we ask that for the future we shall be ensured that, whatever the railroad may cost, it is only on that cost that we shall be required to pay interest in the way of railway rates.
Now, as there have been instances given of peculiar rates, I wish to draw attention to an instance also, the more particularly because this is in connection with the rates over the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, a railway the rates on which, we were given to understand, the government absolutely controlled. I have a memorandum placed in my hands which purports to give the local rates charged over that road, between certain points previous to May, 1900, and since May, 1900. I find that, from Lethbridge to Cranbrook, previous to May, 1900, the first-class rate was 99 cents per hundred pounds; second class, 82 cents ; third class, 65 cents : fourth class, 49 cents ; fifth class, 44 cents ; and tenth class, 22 cents. I find that since May 14, 1900, the rates have been : first class, $1.27 per hundred pounds ; second class, $1.06 ; third class, 85 cents ; fourth class, 64 cents; fifth class, 58 cents ; and tenth class, 29 cents. The people who live along that line of road very naturally asked the question, and I may tell the House and the minister that they asked it very pertinently during the election, how, if this government had control of the rates over that road, they permitted that increase to be made. I was not able to answer them, and I ask the Minister of Railways now : Has the government, as a matter of fact, control over those rates, and if it has, what were the reasons which led them to permit this increase of rates to take place 7 I think anybody will agree, upon comparing the rates previous to May, 1900, over the Crow's Nest line, with similar rates in other parts of the country, that those rates were certainly high enough. But they were increased very materially after May 14, and the people along that line, and I, as their representative in this House, want to know whether that increase was made in defiance of the government or with the consent of the government.


Mr. ROBERT HOLMES (West Huron).: Before the question is put, I would like to make a few remarks on this subject. I
think that the public at any rate look for some measure of government control, or at least for a commission that should to a certain extent control the rates. Personally, I am not acquainted with the grievances that are claimed to exist in regard to inequalities in freight rates, but I have seen a good deal of discussion about them in the public press. Those of us who have paid any attention to this question will have noticed in the press lately a number of articles concerning the practice of discrimination in freight rates on the part of railway companies. It occurs to me that the forms of discrimination, if they do exist, have more bearing upon the interests of the North-west and Manitoba than upon those of the province of Ontario.
In this connection we are reminded of the discussions that took place when the original contract was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Liberal party at that time contended that under the proposed contract certain evils would arise in the future that would cause a great deal of difficulty and a great deal of trouble; and people are apparently realizing now that these evils prophesied by the Liberal party are actually upon them. But, there is no doubt that the people look for some measure of redress; and I am sometimes of the opinion, whether wrongly or rightly, that the people of the North-west, judging by the arguments that are advanced, look for the same consideration and the same rates as the people of the older settled provinces. It strikes me that many of the arguments advanced by the people of the North-west tend to put the matter upon the same footing as in the older settled portions of the country, and they are asking for the same consideration. Now, I am not saying that the Canadian Pacific Railway discriminates, but all their arguments seem to be directed against the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway may deserve the criticisms levelled against it or it may not; all I can say is that the undertaking of constructing that railway was one of enormous magnitude. But people seem to be looking for some form of redress whereby the grievances that they claim to suffer may be removed. I understand that a system has been in vogue in the old country for a number of years, introduced away back in the early fifties, which might be some guide to us. A commission was appointed for a period of five years, and proved so successful that it has been repeatedly reappointed and exists, I understand, at the present time. In the neighbouring republic we find railway commissions existing that are endowed with certain powers to adjust grievances between the people and the railway companies, and to supervise rates and deal with attempted discriminations. Apparently these commissions have proved successful there, and it is possible a similar commission might prove successful in this country.

The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) made a remark that the public expected the Dominion government to deal with questions of this kind, and if the government do not deal with them the public will deal with the government. There is a certain amount of force in that. I am not prepared to go quite as far as the hon. gentleman does along that line, but the public no doubt look to the Dominion government to take some steps, or to enact some legislation, to bring about a better state of affairs than exists at the present time. I am not a very extensive shipper, so personally, I have no grievance to complain of; but parties who are large shippers have complained to me at different times that unfair discrimination is made by the roads, discrimination which they cannot overcome. They have no court of appeal, and they have no way of redressing their grievance, and consequently have had to submit to them so far. It seems to me that some measure of this kind might well be introduced into this country. So far as my opinion goes it leans toward a government commission.
I do not propose to go into the side issues, so to speak, bearing upon this question further than to make a passing remark in reference to government ownership of railways. I am not yet sufficiently advanced to give my consent to government ownership of railways. I think, however, I can foresee a good many difficulties in connection with the successful management of railways by the government. I have noticed that the arguments advanced by members on the other side of the House, with the exception of the hon. member for Lisgar, with respect to government ownership of railways, have come largely from men who were instrumental in fastening upon the North-west, the very railway that they are trying to get control of now, men who, in their papers or in their arguments on the floor of the House, were instrumental in fastening upon the North-west the very objectionable system that they are to-day asking this government to assume control of, and to use for the benefit of the people. I do not believe that the principle of government ownership of railways is theoretically correct; it seems to me there are a great many grave dangers in connection with it. I am satisfied that the people in the western part of Ontario, as well as in other portions of the province, are by no means united in favour of the principle of government ownership of railways. It seems to me that the easier solution of the difficulty might be in some form of legislation like the appointment of a railway commission or tribunal of some sort that can deal with matters of this kind.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: I rise to say very briefly that I am in favour of a commission, as moved for by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis). I Mr. HOLMES.
believe that the time has arrived when, if the government cannot see its way clear to purchase and manage the railways of this country, they certainly ought to appoint a commission of able men to manage the railways irrespective of party politics. The farmers' gatherings all through the country, In Ontario, at least, have expressed themselves strongly upon this matter, and they are all desirous of a commission being appointed for the purpose of settling differences between the people and the railways, and preventing discrimination in favour of exporters or importers and against the farmers. We have heard four hon. gentlemen from the North-west Territories and Manitoba speak this afternoon in favour of the appointment: of a commission. They are all suffering from the effects of the overcharges of the railways. I am satisfied that Ontario lias a grievance, especially when the railway companies will carry freight to the seaboard at a cheaper rate than from a point in Ontario. The Grand Trunk Railway will carry freight as cheaply from Chicago to the seaboard as from Listowei. There must be something wrong when railway companies are allowed to discriminate against the farmers of Ontario in favour of the farmers of the North-west Territories and the farmers of tlie United States. I think something should be done, and done quickly. The country is expecting this government to do something. I believe it has been promised. I believe the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has stated that something of this kind will be done, and the people are looking for it. I have nothing more to say except that I fully endorse the motion that has been made by the hou. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and supported by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) and others.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Mr. Speaker,
I was going to suggest that there are a couple of hon. gentlemen who would like very much to say something upon this motion, but who are not in the Chamber at this moment, and perhaps it may be agreeable to the House to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess. After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. WILLIAM A. GALLIHER (Yale and Cariboo).: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the motion before the House, I would like to add a few words to those which have already been said by hon. members before me. I live in the western part of the country myself and represent a western constituency.
I have personally experienced the hardships that have been complained of so much in regard to excessive rates, and have done so for the past twenty years. I do not propose, for my part, to abuse the Canadian

Pacific Railway here to-night, or any other railway company. We are all more or less proud of that great transcontinental line known as the Canadian Pacific Railway, hut, at the same time, it behooves us to watch carefully and see that the road is giving us justice and giving us justice in every respect. Now, the question for us to consider is not so much as to whether this or any other road has made a good bargain or whether it has received more than it should have received from the country, as it is whether we are suffering in any part of the country and the remedy that should be provided to alleviate that condition. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) made reference to a matter that I would like to bring up again. He referred to the rates charged on the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. I have before me a resolution of the board of trade of the town of Pernie, which is in my constituency, setting out the exact facts and figures, and I can do no better than read what they say as an illustration of the condition that prevails. The following table showing the freight rates charged from Lethbridge to Fernie, a distance of 141 miles, will be of interest. Between these points, prior to the 14th of May, 1900, the rates, which were then considered excessive, were as follows :
Class.	Rate.
1st	
69	cents.2nd	58	"3rd	
46	"4th	
35	"5th	
31	"


An hon. MEMBER.: Between what points ?


William Alfred Galliher: Between Lethbridge and Pernie, a distance of 141 miles on the Crow's Nest line. That is up to the 14th May, 1900. On that date, the rates were increased, and now are :
been increased. I do not know whether the matter has been reported to the government or not. If it has and if it has not been remedied I think I might ask that the matter be looked into.
It is my opinion that this is a matter which should be taken up by the government, and if it is found that the present system of managing our railways is not satisfactory, then some other way should be sought. Whatever good might come from the appointment of a railway commission in the older provinces of Canada, we expect that it will be of comparatively greater benefit to Manitoba and the Northwest and British Columbia. My views on the matter are very much similar to those expressed by the hon. gentleman from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), who moved the resolution. I am in favour of the appointment of a railway commission, and even if that commission does not accomplish all that we hope from it, at all events its_ appointment will be a step in the right direction. There are, doubtless, some portions of the Canadian Pacific Railway which cannot be fully placed under the control of a railway commission, but it must be remembered that there will be other portions of the Canadian Pacific Railway built in the west, and there will be other lines constructed throughout Canada, and all these, at least, will come within the scope of the proposed commission. If this commission is appointed it will be its special duty to attend to railway business alone, and as the hon. member (Mr. Davis) has said, they will be able to take into consideration such railway charters as are applied for to parliament and decide whether they are necessary in the public interest or not. If found not to be necessary they should be rejected by parliament. I have much pleasure in seconding the motion proposed by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis.)
Class.	Rate.	Former rate.
1st	 $1 02 as compared with $0 69
2nd	
0	85	"	"	0	583rd	
0	68	"	"	0	464th	
0	51	"	"	0	355th	
0	46	"	"	0	31
This is an illustration of there being something wrong in connection with the management of that road, though, as I understand, there was a clause in the charter granted for the building of that road giving protection in the matter of railway rates and we will assume that when the Canadian Pacific Railway started out they did not commence by charging the least possible rate they could charge, but, I think, we may safely assume that they charged the rate they were entitled to. Then, why has that rate, in some instances, been practically doubled? I merely quote this statement in support of the figures given by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and to show that even on a road subject to a certain amount of government control these rates have


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: Although this question has been threshed thread bare in this House, and we can hardly expect to have any fresh light on the matter until some practical plan is submitted to the House, yet I wish to express my opinion very briefly upon it. My predecessor in the representation of Winnipeg, the late Mr. Jameson, introduced a motion similar to this one in 1898. He referred to the fact that the government had promised to bring down some kind of measure providing for a railway commission, and he excused himself in speaking to the motion on the ground that his remarks might probably prepare the minds of hon. gentlemen for the expected measure. Now, it seems to me that the railway question in the country has made a great deal more progress than the questions of a railway commission in this House. There is need for some stronger control over our railways than we have now ; some government supervision, some-

thing that will bring the railways nearer together in the matter of rates and abolish that discrimination which is so rampant all over the country. Cases of discrimination have been presented to this House so many times that there is hardly need to refer to them, but one very flagrant case in connection with the furniture trade has come to my notice. On a car-load of chairs from Ontario to Vancouver, the rate is $1.17 ; on a car-load of bedroom suites the rate is $1.38 ; on a car-load of mixed furniture the rate is $1.68 ; and if there be included in it any upholstered goods the rate is $2.08. It is plain that this discriminates against the small dealers and in favour of the big dealer, who can order a car-load of each kind of article. The effect of this discrimination is to absolutely prohibit that small dealer from buying Canadian goods and rather than pay the high freight rates, it is cheaper for him to buy in the western states and pay freight and duty on the goods that he sells to Canadian citizens on the Pacific coast. In spite of all the difficulties that have to be overcome, I have hope that a railway commission can accomplish some good, because in ten or a dozen states of the union where railway commissions have been operating from ten to twenty years, satisfactory results have accrued to the farming and business communities. At the same time, I must say that I do not believe that the appointment of a railway commission will ever prove a proper solution of the transportation problem in Canada. That, in my opinion, can only be attained by government ownership of the roads. At the present lime the people of the country have to bear all the burdens of the construction and of the operation of these railways, and, sometimes they have to bear the cost of maladministration, and yet we practically have no say at all in their management, and no control over their rates. If I believed that the appointment of a railway commission would in any way militate against progress in the line of government ownership, I would not be in favour of it, because I do not believe that a railway commission will be a final solution of the difficulties that have to be overcome in this transportation question. The very extent of our country demands that we should look to finality in this matter, and the only way we can govern the roads effectively is by government ownership, operation, and control.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Many years ago, when this question was first introduced to the notice of the Canadian parliament by Mr. Dalton McCarthy, then member for Simeoe, I supported it. There was a growing feeling in the country that some competent power should control the railways and adjust disputes between the railway companies and the shippers throughout Canada. The agitation grew stronger from Mr. PUTTEE.
year to year, both in this House and in the country, until the government were obliged to ignore it no longer. Then a commission was appointed to inquire into these troubles and to ascertain what would be the best remedy. As a result of the report of that commission, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council was established. I held then, as I have ever believed since, that that was only a makeshift with a view of causing the agitation to subside, and to leave the railways still under the control of parliament. It seemed to me that the railway companies had some kind of cinch upon the parliament of the day, so that they felt safer in the hands of parliament, than under the control of an independent commission, and from that time onwards such cases as have been brought to the notice of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council have been adjusted by that body. As to the workableness of that body, and as to whether it has fulfilled the expectations of the people, it is unnecessary for me to say much at the present time, because the country knows as well as I do that the Railway Committee of the Privy Council has failed to meet the expectations or desires of the people, or to give the people confidence in the tribunal.
The hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) expressed the opinion very strongly that a railway commission would be an unworkable body in this country, and referred to the fact that railway commissions in the United States had not done all that was expected of them. But when speaking of that subject, I thought he did not display a very intimate knowledge of what had been accomplished in the United States through railway commissions. If he had been as familiar with the workings of those commissions as some United States writers, he would have, at least, conceded a great deal of good had been accomplished by them -that while they failed to do all that was expected of them, it could not be successfully established that they were a failure. Where they were a partial failure, it is for us to inquire what were the causes of failure, and whether those causes would apply with equal force in Canada. In my judgment they would not. The principal cause of their failure in the United States was the fact that different states were governed by state laws, so that when a railway passed beyond the boundary of one state, it came under a different law. But that is no reason why the same difficulty would be met with here. We have no provincial laws that would interfere with the working of a commission, because all our railways are largely under the control of the Dominion ; and a railway commission which had its authority from this parliament would be able to exercise a very effectual control over them in every part of the country. But the history of railway commissions in the United States-and I

have taken some trouble to look into it-is that they have been of very great benefit to the people, remedying many grievances, and readjusting many difficulties between railway companies and the people, in many cases to the satisfaction of both.
The hon. member for South Norfolk rather read to the House a lecture on the subject of interference with railway companies. The hon. gentleman said that we hear the pessimistic utterances of men against railway companies-companies who bond railways for very large amounts of money and then complain when we endeavour to readjust the tariff of rates on these railways, and point out that they are not earning a fair rate of interest on ithe money invested in them. Lest I should do the hon. gentleman injustice, 1 will quote his own words as I took them down : ' We are talking about conditions and difficulties of railway problems of which we know little,' and he went on to give us a history of the difficulties encountered in promoting railway construction twenty-five or thirty years ago.
I remember when the hon. gentleman was one of the most active railway promoters in western Canada, and I know that he had many difficulties to contend with at that time. But the hon. member should not forget that we are a progressive people, and are advancing all the time. It was much more difficult to get capital to invest in railway construction then than it is to-day. The difficulty that existed then does not exist now. While to-day capital is plentiful, and a great deal of money is going into, railway construction, it is, to my mind, a matter of great importance to control the bonding power of these railways because the railway companies always put up the plea, when an agitation is started for a reduction of freight rates, that they are not earning a reasonable interest on the money invested. When such a plea is set up, it seems to me that it is the absolute duty of parliament to see that these railway companies are not loaded down with bonds and watered stock to a much greater amount than actually went into the construction of the roads. What we want to know about a particular road is, what amount of money actually went into its construction. The capitalist who put his money in is entitled to a fair interest upon it; but it cannot be successfully established that we are in duty bound to protect capitalists who have watered the stock, and who desire to get out of a road what they never put into it.
We cannot shut our eyes to the agitation which exists in the country to-day, which is becoming more strong and widespread, which is growing with such rapidity as will soon compel parliament to take note of it and deal with this vexed problem. It must be dealt with in the near future, and the government which is not capable of dealing with it will be obliged to give place to one
that will deal with it, and deal with it successfully.
The hon. gentleman gave us an illustration of what he regarded as unfair freight rates compared with what the farmer is getting to-day. He says the farmer in the most westerly portion of Canada pays less on his produce shipped to Liverpool than the farmer around Liverpool gets his goods taken to London. Whose grievance is that ? It is the grievance of the farmer around Liverpool, and let him fight his own batles. That has nothing to do with our grievances in this country. The hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) made the statement, which, I presume, is capable of proof, that on a piece of machinery brought from Glasgow and laid down at Regina there was over $100 more paid for freight than is charged on a like article carried several hundred miles further and landed in British Columbia. Why should that be the case V


Hon. Mr. DOBELL.: Because there is competition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I hope that when the parliament of Canada puts money into railway enterprises, it is acting for the whole people of Canada, and the people have a right to expect that they will get fair-play in proportion to the distance of the haul. I am told that the railway problem is a complex one, requiring years of experience to understand, and that if a railway did not often haul goods long distances below actual cost, it would not get the business at all. Far better not get the business than do it under cost. When the western farmer had the privilege of carrying a barrel of flour from Minneapolis to Montreal at 25 cents a barrel, while the farmer of western Ontario had to give a share of hi? hard earnings to build a railway, and in addition was compelled to pay 35 cents for the hauling of a barrel of flour to Montreal, I say that Canada is paying its money for the benefit of the western farmer near St. Paul, rather than for the benefit of the farmer of western Ontario. Then, I am told in the same breath that it did not pay the actual cost of transportation. If it did not, why should we pay a part of that cost ? Is it to help to bring the western farmers around Minneapolis and St. Paul 500 miles, nearly 1.000 miles, nearer the market in which they sell their produce than we do the Canadian farmers here ?
This question must be dealt with in the near future. The sentiment in favour of settling it is growing so strong that the government cannot ignore it much longer.
The hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) said that the establishment of a railway commission would be an interference with the constitution. How would it interfere with the constitution ? There can be no interference with our constitutional rights in the appointment of a railway commission. 'No parliamentarian or

statesman will deny that we have the power and the right to establish such a commission without thereby violating in any degree the spirit of the constitution. It is just as much within our rights to do this as to make any other law for the purpose of controlling the railway companies.
I was rather amused at the illustration given us by the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher), of the discrimination in rates on the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. That brought to my mind the strong plea of the hon. the Minister of Railways in favour of giving that road a subsidy of $11,000 per mile, namely, that it would provide the farmer with reduced freight rates, and that the control of the freight rates would be in the hands of the government, and there would be no danger of discrimination. That was the plea he gave to justify the large subsidy of $11,000 per mile, and the illustration given by the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo now shows how little credence that plea was entitled to. The hon. member, by his argument, justified the contention on this side of the House that there was not sufficient provision made for the control of the freight rates by the government, and not sufficient justification for the large subsidy given that company.
The hon. member for South Norfolk said that we had no reason to bother ourselves at all about the bonding of the roads so long as the railways were built. That seems a very short-sighted policy for an hon. gentleman of Ills experience to advocate. It seems to be that we are bound to take, cognizance of the bonding of these roads, and keep it within reasonable bounds. Otherwise should we ever take the power to in any way control these railway corporations, we will find ourselves confronted with the same dilemma in which we are with the Canadian Pacific Railway to-day, and will be told that we must not do anything which would prevent any company paying the interest on its bonds, and on its watered stock, as well as on the money that actually went into the construction of the road. Are there any members here who know anything about the Great North-west Central Railway Company, which has a Bill before the House to-day ? If there are, they will remember that in the course of twenty years we were obliged, on two or three occasions, to provide, when amending the charter of that railway, that the company which took it up would furnish the money to pay its debts. There were thousands of dollars piled up against that road before a mile of it was in operation or even built. Another example is the Baie des Chaleurs Railway. Where did the money go which was voted for that railway by the Dominion government and the government of the province of Quebec V Should we ask that company to lower its freight rates, they would claim that they must be allowed to charge sufficiently high Mr. SPROULE.
rates to pay the interest on this money, or otherwise we would be doing an injustice to its creditors. Had we exercised the proper control over the expenditure of capital by these companies, and not have allowed them to squander it as they did, we would not be confronted with the dilemma in which we are to-day. Then there is the Atlantic and Lake Superior Company which has been before the country for many years. I give these examples to show the unwisdom of allowing railway companies to borrow money on bonds, and distribute it among railway promoters and charter brokers and others, and then have it charged up against the road as a debt, to meet the interest on which it is entitled to charge heavier freight rates than otherwise would be required. I give this as an answer to the hon. member for South Norfolk, that we should not concern ourselves at all about what the companies bond their road for, or how they water their stock or pile up debt.
We are rapidly reaching a day when one of two things must be accomplished. Either the government must control the railway companies, or the railway companies will emphatically and entirely control the government. Some people think they are doing that to-day. I am glad to see that occasionally our Minister of Railways puts up apparently a pretty good fight against them, but whether they are too strong or he fails to keep up the persistence absolutley necessary to success, the result seems to fall far short of his expectations. He, however, has my encouragement to any extent he can be induced to go in opposing the pretensions of these corporations.
I am not one of those who believe that a railway commission would remedy all the evils from which we are suffering. There are many reasons why it would not, but if it remedies only a tenth of the evils complained of, that would amply justify its creation. If the commission does not come up to what we expect, it will be easy to amend it. We know that the railway commissions in the United States have been beneficial in many respects, and we have more reason to expect success in this country because our railways are nearly all Dominion roads, and we are not hampered by any state laws as these commissions are in the United States. It is said that as our railways extend in the United States and draw considerable traffic from there, a railway commission would not be effective. But that argument would apply with tenfold greater force to railway commissions in the United States, where each state has its own railway legislation.
I think it would be workable to a greater extent than many people suppose. While I do not believe it would entirely cure the evil we have to contend with, I think it would be a step in the right direction. But there

is one thing sure, and that is that in the near future something must he done. Some tell us that the remedy should be the purchase and ownership of the railways by the state. That seems a gigantic undertaking, and one for which we are hardly prepared.
1 have sometimes thought that we should bring our efforts to bear in a way of increasing our own railway by extending the government railway to the lakes, and ultimately it might reach the Pacific coast. This would give us the through railway that would offer a salutary check upon the two great corporations that seem likely, in the near future, to control all the railways of the country. Such a project involves a much smaller financial undertaking than the buying out of all the railways, and I would rather favour that. But I must say that there is a growing feeling that the day will come when the state will be obliged, in some way, to take charge of the railways, or to have control of them by purchase or otherwise. But, for the present, let us make a step in advance of what we have done in the past. It seems to me the only reasonable thing would be the establishment of a proper railway commission to do the work very largely on the same lines as those followed by a similar tribunal in the United States.


Mr. WILLIAM P. McGREARY (Selkirk).: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to have spoken on this question to-night, as I had no notice until this afternoon that the subject was coming up. This is a question the history of which is practically the history of Manitoba and the North-west Territories for the last twenty years ; it is a question calling for thought and preparation on the part of one who is to speak upon it. I will not weary the House with details of cases of discrimination in freight or passenger rates or excessive rates charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for I believe these matters have been thoroughly dealt with by previous speakers. But I would refer to one or two phases of the question that, it seems to me, have not been sufficiently dealt with. Several speakers who preceded me have told you that grants have been given to the Canadian Pacific both in cash and in public lands. They forgot, however, to mention that these lands have been free from taxes ever since they were given to the Canadian Pacific Company, which, if translated into terms of money, would represent a very large sum. These hon. gentlemen forgot to tell you that these lands have been increased in value, not, as one hon. gentleman said this afternoon, by the fact of the line being built, but by immigrants coming in and settling on the homestead lands alongside, improving them, and building roads, bridges, schools, and so on.
As I have said, the history of the Canadian Pacific Railway is almost contemporaneous with that of Manitoba for the last
twenty years, and it would be well to refer back to 1881 and to speeches made by members of this House at that time, some of whom are still here. I regret that time has not permitted me to refer to the debates on that occasion. Asj a resident of Winnipeg, however, I can remember looking over the newspapers at the time, and scanning the reports of speeches of the leaders on either side. I can remember that the leaders of the opposition of that day made most strenuous efforts to have certain clauses inserted in the contract which were not accepted by parliament. And it is for that reason that we suffer some of the grievances we are labouring under to-day. I can recollect certain prophecies made by Sir Charles Tupper -I was going to say 'promises,' but I remember that Sir Charles Tupper denied that lie had made promises and said that they were prophecies. He prophesied in 1881 that, in ten years from the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, there .would be two million people in that country, and we would export, if I remember the figures well, 60,000,000 bushels of wheat per year. No part of that prophecy has ever been fulfilled. I regret to say that the census of 1891 showed very small advance over the natural increase of the population for the ten years between 1881 and 1891. When Sir Charles Tupper made that prophecy in this House, I feel assured, he honestly stated what he believed. I believe that that hon. gentleman was, in most of his acts, a friend of the west. I believe that when he was a member of this House, and also when he was High Commissioner in England, his intentions were honestly friendly to the western country. But I believe that, unknowingly, he placed in the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway a weapon by which his prophecies were defeated. The first difficulty arose when the Canadian Pacific Railway Company gave the construction of the road to a company composed of their own managers. The first steal, if we may use the term, was made when this construction company made millions of dollars out of the building of the road, which stands charged to the people of Manitoba to-day. The next difficulty arose in 1884-I believe, when, as you know, the farmers' union was formed in Manitoba-many farmers in Manitoba began to see that the road which was to have been of so much benefit to us was a monopoly that would take the profit of everything they raised. I remember attending a meeting of that union in the Opera House in Winnipeg. I saw men there take off their coats and make speeches of a most declamatory and inflammatory nature-almost to the extent of threatening war. I afterwards saw many of the men who attended that meeting, among them some of the most solid farmers of the province, go to Minnesota and Dakota to escape this octopus whose tentacles were closing around them-and many of them can be found in those states to-day. It went on

till 1886, If I recollect aright, when the merchants of Winnipeg and the farmers of the west saw that this Canadian Pacific Railway, unless there was some competition in rates, would take the profits of everything in the country-that everything would belong to that company. We clamoured for lines to be brought in from the south. The hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) said this afternoon that the Canadian Pacific charter had been altered in 1886 so as to allow other lines to come in. And how did that come about ? If you had been at a place called Fort White, near Winnipeg, at that time, Mr. Speaker, you would know why they had allowed other lines in. You would have seen citizens there, church members, peaceful men, standing at that crossing where the diamond was being put in at two o'clock in the morning, with something in their hip-pockets besides tooth-picks-and they meant business. When the box-car of the Canadian Pacific Railway with forty men aboard came up to that diamond, those men saw that the safest thing for them was to get out! of the car. Time has gone on, but Sir Charles Tupper's prophecies are far from being fulfilled. I claim that one of the greatest causes retarding immigration into the North-west has been this Canadian Pacific Company. I must do them the justice of saying that during the last three or four years they have made some concessions to passengers going into Manitoba and the North-west Territories from the south. They have also given a pretty low rate on freight that is settlers' effects-a $6 rate on car-load lots from the boundary line to Winnipeg. The Northern Pacific Company does the same. They have also given a low rate to Edmonton-about $42- on car-load lots, and also a low rate on passenger traffic. But when the immigrant wants to go back to see his friends, he has to pay four cents a mile, and an exorbitant freight rate on everything he wants to take out. You can easily imagine the effect that it will have ujton jteople coming from the United States, and from the old country as well. Some Russians, for instance, who have come in the last five or six years, after they have been accustomed to travel at the rate of one-third of a cent per mile at home, when they are told that they have got to pay four cents, they walk. That is the way they get over the difficulty. The same plan is followed by some merchants living down in the country not far from Winnipeg, in the town of Selkirk, twenty miles away. I have known them to employ teams of horses to draw their groceries, coal oil and so forth, instead of taking them by railway. They say they can make more money that way than by paying the Canadian Pacific Railway rates.
Now. I would like to discover the best means for relieving the province of Manitoba and the west generally of this condition of affairs. It is a matter that will Mr. McCreary.
require considerable thought. Government ownership is a very popular cry. It is a fad in the minds of some people. But the difficulty is that it has not yet been tried in Canada sufficiently to warrant any man of sound judgment in saying it is going to be an unqualified success. I have had a little experience in municipal matters, and for a number of years, in our city of Winnipeg, we worked for municipal ownership of public franchises, when I was a member of the city council in 1895, 1896 and 1897, we undertook to municipalize our waterworks. We raised three-quarters of a million dollars under a by-law, and went into that scheme. I am sorry to say, and my hon. friend across the floor, from Lisgar, will bear me out, that these waterworks have not been the success I should like to have seen them. I believe the principal is all right, but unfortunately one thing and another has happened so that the people are not altogether satisfied with the result. We must also say that the management of the Intercolonial Railway for the last twenty years, or for the last number of years, has not been so satisfactory to the people of Canada as it should have been. I very much fear that according to our present system of government it may be some time before we reach that millennial stage by which government ownership of railways will be in the best interest of the people. I very much fear that so long as party government prevails in its present hard and fast lines, no matter how religious and pious party politicians may be in power, they will be too much disposed to favour their own friends and make the railway management a political lever, for such management to be in the best interests of the public. All these matters have got to be taken into consideration before we should have government ownership. I observe with some pleasure that the Hon. Geo. W. Ross proposes or suggests to construct a line of railway to Temiscamingue. I would like to see this experiment tried in the province of Ontario, before it is attempted in the great Dominion.
I believe that a railway commission properly conducted will be the means of doing much good, but I think a great deal depends upon the powers of that commission.
I trust that the commission will not be empowered merely to settle questions of discriminations in rates, I trust that it will not be limited to settling time tables and matters of that sort; but that it will have such powers as will enable it to go back and examine this charter given to the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1881, and to consult the best attorneys, irrespective of any railway company that can be found, to see exactly what the meaning of that charter is. A charter has sometimes to be studied, to be read very closely, and several times before the full gist of it is comprehended, and I take it, that if solicitors of ability were to take up that charter and to look up that

clause which seems to trouble the hon. member for Lisgar so much, they might find means of getting over that ten per cent clause. I would not be surprised if solicitors could even find means of getting over that. I recollect very well we had a charter given to a street railway company in the city of Winnipeg, and some years ago the company refused to level their tracks with the street crossings. They refused to do several other things that the city engineer required of them. He gave them a notice as required by the charter and they refused to comply. Another solicitor was called in, and I pointed out to him clause two of the charter, and I said :	Doesn't that
clause mean that if they won't carry out this thing you can take away their charter? A bill in equity was filed within two or three weeks to take away their charter, and they came down off their perch immediately and did whatever the city of Winnipeg required of them. For years the city of Winnipeg had no idea they had such power.
There is no doubt that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, if properly brought to task, will do much better than they are doing to-day. This is borne out by a statement made the other day by Mr. Sliauglmessy, president of the road, when Mr. Roblin, now premier of Manitoba, brought in a Bill to purchase the Northern Pacific Railway, to guarantee its bonds and to make a certain bargain with the Canadian Northern road. Immediately we saw Mr. Sliauglmessy come to the legislature and say :	Don't do this for God's sake, I
will come down, I will give you a reduction of four cents within the short space of two years if you will not give this charter to that company. That shows what can be done if the people of Manitoba are in earnest. Now, Sir, I believe that this commission will not fulfil probably all that is expected of it, it will not carry out everything that we require. But, I believe it is a step in the right direction, and after we have had it two or three years, and find that it is not relieving the west of the disabilities under which they are labouring, then will be the time for the western politicians, irrespective of party, to .loin hands and hearts and come down to eastern Canada and to this parliament and demand that the government build such roads as will enable our new province and the western territories to achieve the destiny for which they were carved out.


Robert Lorne Richardson: If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I desire to add something that the hon. gentleman has omitted. He said that government ownership had not been tried sufficiently in this country to warrant any man of sense and judgment advocating it. It may be that what he says is correct. But government ownership has been tried successfully in Austria-Hungary, in Belgium, in Switzerland, in Germany and in the Australasian
colonies, and so far as figures go, has proved to be an absolute success.


William Forsythe McCreary: i was speaking of Canada. The conditions may be so different in those European countries that they would not apply here at all.


Mr. A. S. KENDALL (Cape Breton).: I do not rise to take part In this discussion, but merely to put myself on record. I come from the eastern part of Canada, where we have the advantages or disadvantages of a state-owned railway, and for one I desire to say that I think the advantages entirely outweigh the disadvantages. A great many of our people are in sympathy with the desire of the west for state-owned roads. Now it has been made apparent here that the people are suffering from undue exactions by the railroad In the way of freight rates. The Influence which these railway corporations have acquired in this country is a subject for alarm. It has been my opportunity to sit in the committee room during a number of sessions as a spectator, and I must say that the safety and welfare of this country have depended upon the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, and other great railway corporations were trying to cut one another's throats. When these great corporations are united as they doubtless will be before long, and united perhaps with the big coal combines of the country, they will have power to make and unmake parliaments. These big corporations do not care for politics, except in so far as one party or the other will serve them best. For these reasons I say that while I believe this commission will give some measure of relief, for one I shall never be satisfied until Panada owns her railroads.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I should be very much inclined myself to despair if the facts were such as stated by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Kendall), and I should feel bound to draw the same conclusion as he does from those facts. The hon. gentleman suggests that if the time ever does arrive, and he imagines it is likely to arrive at some not remote day, when the two great railway corporations, the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway, shall unite their interests, they then will have such a controlling power over the parliament of this country that we will be absolutely at their mercy. I feel constrained to express the opinion that even if the time should come, and I am not so sure that that time has not already arrived, when, to all practical intents and purposes, the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway are in entire unison in their railway policy, I should be very loath indeed to acknowledge that the people of this country will be unable to defend themselves and to take good

care of their own interests. I think that the railway companies will he sorry to find themselves in antagonism to the people of the country. I think they will not find it to their interest to excite any such conflict, and I believe, Sir, that the managers of these two railways are in their hearts convinced that in such a conflict they are bound to succumb. The people of the country are not in their hands. A few individuals here and there may be largely subject to their influence, but the great body of the people of this Dominion, I am happy to believe, if the time arrives, and they are called upon, are able to go to the polls, and record their votes irrespective of what the two great combined railway corporations may demand. That is my conviction, and I believe that to be the conviction of the majority of the members of this House, and if that were not my conviction, I would despair of the future of this country. . I have followed with all possible interest the discussion that has so far taken place, and I have followed with like interest the discussions which have ensued from time to time, and particularly within the last two months in the newspaper press upon the question of a railway commission, and if one is justified in forming any judgment as to what the state and trend of public opinion is upon this question you would be justified in concluding that the people of Canada are rapidly coming to the opinion that a railway commission would be a very important advance, and that they think its working would be attended with good results. I believe that to be the state of public opinion. I am not in a position to say whether that opinion is founded upon good reason, or whether it is founded upon sufficient ground or not. I am inclined to think that a great many of the most earnest and active and vigorous advocates of a railway commission are led to conclude that it will be a panacea for all of the ills upon grounds which are not sufficient. I have heard, during this discussion, hon. gentlemen specifying their grievances, the grievances of their people, the grievances that are complained of in different sections of the Dominion, and the grievances which they have mentioned, I am bound to say, in my opinion, as far as X have been able to form one, are largely grievances that do not admit of remedy at the hands either of a railway commission, or any other tribunal that can be set up by legislative enactment. Take, for instance, the case mentioned by two or three hon. gentlemen who have spoken. One hon. gentleman, I think it was the hon. member for Bast Grey (Mr. Sproule) mentioned one case, the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) mentioned another, and the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) another. These cases are all very similar. One hon. gentleman said that it was a grievous wrong, and parliament Mr. BLAIR.
ought to remedy such a wrong, that it was possible for the wheat shippers of Chicago to have their wheat carried to the Atlantic seaboard at as low a rate as the farmer at Listowel could have his grain carried to the seaboard. X think reflection will convince anybody that you cannot remedy that state of things, and that if it is a grievance, a grievance it must continue to be. Why ? Because the railway company which is carrying grain from Chicago to the seaboard is obliged to carry it at such rates as will enable it to get the business there, or not carry at all. Our railways which are competing for the traffic from Chicago to the seaboard will carry for rates equal, or very triflingly in excess of the rates to which the hon. gentleman refers, if engaged to carry grain. If the legislature should provide, either by its own direct enactment, or through a commission, that the railway should be forbidden to carry grain from Listowel to the seaboard at the same rates that it charges to carry from Chicago to the seaboard, what would be the result ? The grain would either not be carried from Chicago to the seaboard, or it would not be carried from Listowel to the seaboard. The railway company would make its choice as between the two businesses. Which shall it hold, and which shall it abandon t It would have to determine which was the more profitable. It would have to take into account all the conditions existing, and to say-and the Railway Committee would have to yield to the force of the argument-that the business between Chicago and the seaboard will not be done by this company, or that it will not be done by another company. So that, no injustice is being done to the Listowel farmer. He will not have his grain carried one fraction of a farthing less by reason of the fact that you have prevented the railway company from hauling wheat from Chicago to the seaboard, and he may have to pay an advanced rate because the increased business the company may be getting in its haul from Chicago to the seaboard may enable it to carry grain at a somewhat lower rate from intermediate points. In my opinion it will be impossible that you can so legislate as to prevent business being done under these conditions, so long as railway companies have to confront one another between competitive points. The existing law, the Railway Act, which was framed after due consideration upon this point, I apprehend, contains a clause which distinctly limits the application of the discriminating rule to the case of the carriage of freights between competing points, recognizing that if they did not do that they would be likely to strike a blow at the business of the country which would be vastly more injurious to the general interest and vastly more likely to be productive of the dislocation of the general business of the country

than it would be to omit such a provision from the Act and make an arbitrary rule which shall prescribe that every railway company shall carry every pound of freight hauled on its line at precisely the same comparative figures. X do not think that can be done. That is only one out of many illustrations which can be given of the same character, and which go to show that when you are dealing with questions of this intricate character, of this complicated nature, you cannot work out the ideas that you may think are equitable and just, and at the same time have regard to the demands of business and the conditions which are existing upon the other hand. But, Mr. Speaker, when I say this, I do not pretend to advance it, and I would not be understood as advancing it, as a reason why a commission cannot with great advantage be established by the law of the land. I desired to point that out to show, merely by way of illustration, that the strong reasons which have been urged in this discussion so far by my hon. friends-and they do impress me as being cases of very great grievance-are not reasons upon which it would be wise for parliament to arrive at the conclusion that a railway commission will be able to provide an adequate remedy for these things, and that we will find it a complete answer to all the complaints that are being made.
My hon. friend mentioned a somewhat similar case when he spoke of machinery which was brought from Glasgow and carried all the way from Vancouver at a rate of about one hundred dollars less than the same kind of article was cai'ried from Glasgow to Regina. Is that not a case precisely in point ? There are two or three railways running in competition between the Atlantic seaboard and the Pacific coast. These railways are competing with each other for the business, and in order to secure that business they are obliged to cut under one another, and in doing so they cut their rates down to the lowest possible limit; and so they get the business. Is it any real injury to the people who may be located along that line that the freight is carried by a railway company in this country rather than by a railway company in the United States, and brought in by one of these connecting lines to the Pacific coast ? Would it be an advantage to this country that we should force that traffic over one of the United States lines ? That would be the result, however, if we would say that a railway company cannot impose upon goods which are brought to any point short of the Pacific coast, a rate which, proportionately would be higher than the rate to the coast itself. Hon. gentlemen will see, on a moment's consideration, how full of all sorts of difficulties these questions are. Do not let us jump to the conclusion that a railway commission is going to provide an 28
adequate and complete remedy for all these difficulties, but, taking a moderate view of the question, let us see whether or not there are not things which a railway commission can accomplish which has not been accomplished under the jurisdiction of the Rail way Committee of the Privy Council.
With respect to the action of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council in the past, 1 may fairly claim that it has endeavoured, and with some success, to deal effectually and vigorously with such cases of discrimination under the law as have been brought to its notice. Let it be remembered that all that has been described here to-day as discrimination is not in any sense discrimination under the law. People are apt to give a much wider interpretation to the meaning of the word ' discrimination ' than our present law would warrant, than the word bears in law, under which a railway commission has been established in any other country, or under which a railway commission will be or can be safely established in this country. A railway commission has been established in the mother country. Let us look for a moment how it operates. When I visited England a few years ago I spent a couple of days in the beautiful fruit-growing county of Iient. It is a great strawberry-growing county, and I asked the people about how they forwarded the berries to the London market, the price they paid, and the charges for freight. They told me that for many years they had regarded it as a great grievance that the strawberry-growers and shippers of France, Holland, and Germany were able to send their strawberries to the London market at a lower rate of freight than they themselves had to pay, although they were within from forty to sixty miles of London. I asked an intelligent gentleman with whom I was conversing : Why does not your railway commission apply a remedy, and his answer was ; The railway commission cannot prohibit the shipment from the continent at these low rates ; they cannot control the rates, and our fruit-growers have to fight it out for themselves, and do the best they can. Yet our friends in some parts of Canada think that a similar condition of things can be remedied by the appointment of a railway commission in this country. They cannot afford a remedy in England under the railway commission, or at least they do not do so, and the inference is that, although the railway commission has ample power, they have not found it expedient to interfere, and we may assume that they have very good reasons for their course. We cannot tell in what direction a general dislocation of business would ensue if these matters are thoughtlessly meddled in. and, while relief cannot be afforded in a particular case, or class of cases, it might be attended with serious consequences in other directions, and result in a larger degree of injury being



done. Let me refer again to the Kailway Committee of the Privy Council. Speaking with the best recollection X have of the various questions which have been brought to my attention since I have been Minister of .Railways, I am not aware that there has been any case of discrimination in rates that has not been dealt with by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, if under the law it could deal with it. X remember one or two cases in which we were able to decide that there had been discrimination, and which were dealt witii effectually. The House will remember the complaint as to the arrangement made by the Standard Oil Company with the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. That complaint was capable of being proven within the law, and when it was proven there was no weakness in the arm of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to deal with it. We did not hesitate a moment to make up our minds as to what we should do, and the result was that this grievance was abated at once. I do not remember any case in which a complaint was made to us from any part of the country, in which we did not endeavour to get at the facts, and when it appeared that there was discrimination in the sense contemplated by the law, we have applied the remedy. There have been many complaints made to us of alleged discrimination, but there was no discrimination ill them in the sense intended by law, nor was there discrimination in the sense that could be intended by any law we could pass. Hon. gentlemen complain of high rates upon many grounds. I will take the case that was mentioned to-day-the increase of rates between Cranbrook and Lethbridge, or between Lethbridge and Nelson. What is the fact with regard to that case ? The fact is that the rates which are now being imposed by the railway company are not in excess of the rates which they are authorized by law to impose, under the schedule which was fixed by the Governor in Council, with the best information at our disposal. It is true, there was a raise in the rate not very long since; but that raise occurred in this way. There was a reduction previously ; or, when the rate was first fixed, it was away below the schedule. For some reason or other, the companies concerned felt that these rates were too low, and they raised them ; but they did not raise them beyond or up to the schedule of rates allowed them by law, or when the tariff was submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council. It does not follow by any means that because we approve of a schedule of rates, the railway companies will always or to any great degree maintain their rates up to that schedule. That is the maximum. We have to fix a maximum. It is the only way in which rates could be fixed by us or by a railway commission. We cannot Mr. BLAIR.
fix a rate to-day on this railway for a part of Its line, and another rate tomorrow for another part of its line. We have to make a general rate for a district or area of country, arriving as well as we can at a conclusion as to what would be a fair and reasonable maximum rate to allow, from the best information we can gather, considering the different conditions of the different belts or areas. We have to consider the cost of operating the line. We do not often consider the question of the cost of building the line or the extent to which bonds have been issued. These are not the things we have in our minds ; but we have thought that we could best arrive at fair results with regard to a tariff of rates by comparison with other roads operating under like conditions, in other countries it may be, or in our own. For instance, when we were determining what we would approve as the maximum scale for the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, we took pains to ascertain what were the schedules allowed and in operation upon the lines to the south of the boundary traversing the same description of country as our own ; and I will state to the House now that after a careful comparison of the rates, local and through, which were fixed by the authorities in the different states and territories to the south of the boundary line, we fixed as the maximum a lower schedule of rates upon the Canadian Pacific Railway traversing the Crow's Nest Pass than were allowed on those other railways. In every single instance, I think, we fixed lower rates in respect to all the classifications of goods and in respect to all the distances. At all events, we did so in the great majority of cases. So that it is not fair to say, and it cannot be said with a knowledge of the facts, that the schedules upon the Crow's Nest Pass Railway are higher than the schedules upon the other roads which are traversing east and west, south of the boundary line.
I have no doubt that while these maximum schedules are as they are, there are reasons why some of the railways to the south, perhaps all of them, may issue their tariffs upon a lower scale than the maximum. I have no doubt that they do it just as we do it. Possibly they may under some particular circumstances make some of their classifications lower and some of their distances lower. But we cannot by any possibility avoid that, and no tribunal, no railway commission, could reach a general conclusion as to what ought to be a fair maximum rate, in respect to all those classifications and in respect to distances, in any other way than the result was arrived at by the Governor in Council. It is not a thing which is capable of mathematical demonstration. There is no way in which we can figure out what would be absolutely right, what the business ought to stand, or what the business would not stand, what the conditions of the people will enable them to pay, or

what the conditions of the people in a locality will not enable them to pay. We cannot reach these results by any precise scientific method. We have to do it in a crude way, by comparison with other railways, and railways whose applications are before us. When you come to examine, therefore, into the complaints which are so frequently made in the public press, as a matter of fact many of them will be found to be based, in the first place, upon insufficient information, and in the next place, upon the drawing of improper inferences from information which they may accurately have.
But, all the same, I frankly acknowledge, as I stated a moment ago, that there are strong reasons why it would be well for us to try the experiment of a railway commission. It is not possible for us to introduce a Bill for that purpose at the present session. I may frankly confess that if any culpability attaches for the non-presentation of a Bill of that kind at the present session, I would be in duty bound to assume the largest measure of responsibility upon myself. I want to disabuse the mind of my hon. friend from Bast Grey (Mr. Sproule) when he suggests, not probably intending to do anybody any injustice, that my inclination may perhaps be all right, but that 1 find myself overborne or prevented by the influence of others, or perhaps by my colleagues. I want to say to the House that so far as I have any means of judging, my colleagues are as well disposed as I am to favour tile experiment of a railway commission, and I confidently believe that it will be one way of convincing the public mind that there are difficulties in the way of handling these questions which are not of a political character, which do not take their rise from any political influence or pressure, but which are necessarily incident to the transaction of a business that has grown to enormous proportions during recent years, which it is an immensely complicated problem to solve. I do not say that the railway commissions in the United States have not done good work, but they have fallen very far short of the expectations which were formed for them. I do not say that the railway commission in England has not done good work, but I do say that it has absolutely failed to meet the expectations which were held out respecting it, and there is a strong agitation in that country against its continuance.
During the course of this discussion, some of our friends have pointed out a few matters which they think might fairly come within the scope of such commission. The hon. gentleman from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) thought that the charter-mongers perhaps might be sent adrift if a railway commission were established, and that the duty might well be imposed upon the commission of investigating into the sufficiency of all applications to parliament for railway 28J
charters, and reporting the conditions upon which these charters should be granted, and the extent of bonding privileges that should be conceded. I hardly think that parliament would be willing to denude itself entirely of the power of granting railway Charters. We are supposed to make some inquiry into these applications. We are in tlie habit of inquiring into the necessity for the railway asked for and of imposing restrictions against the excessive issue of bonds. It is not difficult for any member of parliament to procure information as to tlie reasonable necessity of constructing a railway in any section of our country, nor is it difficult to get information as to the probable cost, in a general way, and we usually have that information furnished us. When there is any conflict as to the granting of a charter, the subject is pretty thoroughly discussed, and we have ample means of forming a judgment as to whether the charter should be granted or refused. I question, therefore, whether it would be well for parliament to refuse to retain in its hands to the fullest extent the right of granting these applications made from time to time. The question of railway construction is not one which has ceased to be, by any means, a live question. I believe that we are only entering upon the work of railway construction in Canada. Railways are just as necessary as highways. You will have to increase your railways in our great western country, ten-fold, twentyfold, perhaps one hundred-fold, before you get that country developed. We are, in fact, only upon the threshold of the opening up and proper development of our great western inheritance. Bet us not forget that the people in these different localities are impressed to a degree that we perhaps, in this section of the country, can hardly realize, with the importance of having railways laid down in their midst. These railways are an absolute and vital necessity to the filling up of this country. And when the people are crying out for railways, I do not think it would be wise policy for parliament to place undue obstacles in the way of chartering these roads.
The same experience will be undergone in the west that we have had in the east. We will find the people there crying out almost in despair for the construction of railways in every section of the country, giving, and themselves supplicating their municipalities to help, calling upon the provincial legislatures to contribute, and also upon the Dominion parliament to eome to their rescue. They do so because railways are to them a paramount necessity, and because there is no reasonable amount of debt that they would not feel justified in incurring in order to secure railway construction in their midst. Therefore, we in this part of the country ought not to be any less generous in our treatment of applications for rail-

way assistance in these unopened sections of our great west, than we have been in the past when dealing with applications for railways nearer the great centres and in the older provinces of Canada. We must not shut our eyes to the growing necessities of that country ; we cannot refuse to give it liberal treatment. If we should, we would be adopting an unwise policy, and one which will be attended with much more serious results than even going a little to the extreme the other way.
I do not think I would be justified in dwelling any longer on this question. I did not intend speaking at such length, but I wish to make one concluding remark. The Bill to establish a railway commission cannot be introduced this session. I stated in the House last year that I hoped at an early date to be able to introduce such a measure, but at that time I did not sufficiently carry in mind the fact that as soon as parliament was over, we would be plunged into the engrossing occupation of a general election. That absorbed pretty well all the time and attention which would have [DOT]been possible for me to give to any other subject, and from that time down, there has not been any opportunity open to me of taking the subject up and considering and examining it as it must necessarily be considered, weighed and examined, if a Bill was to come up for consideration of parliament in such a form as it ought to come before receiving the sanction of this legislature.
In the meantime, and while we are waiting for another session, we are considering now whether it might not be to advantage that we should set somebody to work who, without our incurring a very large expense, might become possessed, by inquiry upon the spot, of the real facts and the full extent of the grievances which may be remediable, and which are finding expression in the public press and on the floor of this House. Such an investigation would be attended, I think, with two great results-it would put us in a position, when we finally draft our measure, to know, at all events, the nature of the difficulties which, so far as it is possible to do so, we hope to be able to surmount; and it would, at the same time, enable us to find whether or not there are at the moment existing in these localities any grievances which the Railway Committee itself could deal with and deal with promptly, before we should have time to introduce and pass a law dealing with this subject. That is the feeling and disposition of the government. My own personal desire, Mr. Speaker, is that we should grapple with the question-a question necessarily of great importance, and one that is engaging largely the attention of the general public throughout the whole of Canada- and grapple with it vigorously. Let it strike where it may, so far as any improper Mr. BLAIR.
railway interest is concerned. Railway interest we must consider, but improper, unreasonable railway interest we are not justified in considering. And when I say that this is my own feeling, I am bound to say, as a matter of justice to every one of my colleagues, that I believe, from what has occurred and from the opinions thev have expressed, and from what they have said to me, that they are as deeply sensible of the importance of our meeting, as fully as possible, the complaints which are being made throughout the country, and are as strongly disposed as I am myself to aid in any measure which will ensure an adequate and efficient remedy.


Thomas Osborne Davis: In closing this debate, I would like to take a few moments to answer some of the statements made by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, and also statements made by the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair). If I understand the argument of the Minister of Railways, it amounts simply to this-that without competition, the people can get no relief, for, in discussing the point brought up by the hon. gentleman from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) with reference to the haul of grain from Chicago as compared with the charge from Listowel, Ont., I understood him to say that competition would force the railway companies to give a. lower rate from Chicago than from Listowel. Now, as I have said, we in the North-west Territories live at a distance from the head of ocean navigation, and we had hoped for some relief from the rate charged on our grain from the grain fields of the west to the head of navigation, and I cited this afternoon the fact that we were paying 8f cents per bushel for hauling our grain from Winnipeg, 448 miles, as against 4J cents paid by the people, no matter who they are, who have their grain hauled a thousand miles, in round numbers, to Montreal, on the lakes, and the Canada Atlantic. So, I think we had a right to claim some relief. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) says that the Canadian Pacific Railway, in the kindness of their hearts, have offered to reduce the rates on grain to the lakes to 4 cents a bushel, provided the people of Manitoba will deal with them instead of dealing with a competing line, the Canada Northern. In view of this fact, I think the people of the west may justly claim that the government should step in and give them some relief. It seems to me a sad thing if the government cannot do this. If we must get competing lines in order to secure cheaper freight rates, it is a good thing for the people to know that fact. But, I submit that if one railway can do all the work under proper supervision and control, it would be better to have one railway than two ; for, if they have one railway, it can do the work for less than two railways can do it for when it is divided between them.

Of course, we do not expect that a railway commission would be a panacea for all the ills that flesh is heir to. We never advanced that idea. But we think that with a properly constituted railway commission we could get relief from some grievances. I showed this afternoon that the local rates on coal oil between Petrolia and Winnipeg, and Winnipeg and Prince Albert, are together 11 cents less than the through rate from Petrolia to Prince Albert. That is a grievance that a railway commission could deal with. Other questions also would arise. We have had any number of grievances in the North-west. For instance, for two or three sessions here, a good deal of time was taken up in discussing the Elevator Bill, and trying to get relief for the people in the handling of their grain. If we had had a properly constituted railway commission, the question could have been dealt with by that commission without troubling this House. Another point was that referred to by my kon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) in connection with the locating of a station. We do not want to be at the mercy of a railway corporation, because a big corporation like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company can make or break towns. If we propose to tax them and they do not want to pay the taxes, they can remove the station to some other place and build a town there. The case referred to by the hon. member for Alberta was that of Pincher Creek. A branch of the Crow's Nest line, passed within two miles of Pincher Creek. The people of the town petitioned the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to place their station at the nearest point to the town. The railway company replied that on account of a grade or something, it was impossible for them to do so. So they put the station about two miles up the track, or about four miles from the town. Then the people applied to the government, I suppose to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, that my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) thinks is so much better and more suitable to the requirements of the country than a railway commission, but the reply of that body was that nothing could be done. But, lo and behold, a short time after, the Canadian Pacific Railway wrote and wired to the people of Pincher Creek, telling them they would place their station on the very spot where the people asked them to build it in the first place, and would do it without money and without price, though, in the first instance, the people offered a certain sum if they would place it there. A question of that kind could be settled by a properly constituted railway commission if we had one.
Now, I want to point out another fact to the Minister of Railways and Canals. In the town in which I live we have a salt deposit, and we would not have to go more than 250 miles east with our salt in order to
be able to develop quite an industry in that town; but we cannot do it simply on account of the freight rates. We find the people in Goderich load their salt as ballast on boats going across the lakes, and get such low rates from the Canadian Pacific Railway, that they can place their salt down in competition to us, and drive us out of our own markets. I claim that is a grievance.
Now, I find in comparing the rates between Buffalo and New York over the New York Central, and it is about the same distance as from Winnipeg to the great lakes, that the shippers over that road have to pay something like 3 cents a bushel as compared with the 8 2-5 cents per bushel that we pay for the same distance in the west. I have shown this afternoon that they charge in the town of Prince Albert, in which I live, more for hauling stuff 609 miles, than they charge the people of Calgary for hauling 840 miles. I do not see where the long haul comes in there. If they hauled for the people of Calgary for the same price as the people of Prince Albert, then there might be some force in the argument of the Minister of Railways and Canals; but when they charge us 3 and 4 cents per 100 pounds more for carrying freight a shorter distance than they charge the people of Calgary, I think we have a grievance.
I want now to refer to the speech of the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale). That hon. gentleman appears to me to be a venerable Rip Van Winkle. He appears to have been asleep for the last 15 or 20 years and to have just wakened up; because he has treated us this afternoon to a tale of ancient history about the Grand Trunk Railway. He tells up that the Grand Trunk Railway, with all the money that had been invested in it, much of which he says was invested by widows and orphans, had never paid more than 11 cents per mile on the money invested. I wish he had gone further and told us how much money had been invested in the road. I think it would be found that the road is bonded to about double what it is worth. As was said by the hon. member for Grey, the people should not be called upon to pay interest on double what a railroad is worth, but only upon the exact amount taken in the first place to build the road. Is it right that the people of Alberta should be called upon to pay interest on 5 million dollars, when their road only cost 3 millions by the statement of the company In the blue-books ? I do not think that is a fair proposition. Therefore, I say it is time some steps should be taken by the government; and if we cannot get relief by a railroad commission, then we will have to go a step further, and the government will have to take control of the roads as they have done in Australia and other countries.
Book at the bearing of this question on the North-west Territories. If we are ever to get that country opened up and developed,

its mineral resources witli its wealth of timber and fisheries and agricultural lands, we must have some relief from railroad oppression. We will not get people to come into that country otherwise. A pioneer who is an intelligent man is sent in by his fellow-farmers to look out locations, and the first thing that man will do is to inquire what he will have to pay for hauling his produce to market. When be is told that be will bave to pay 8 2-5 cents a bushel for hauling his grain 448 miles, be will compare that rate with what the people have to pay in the United States, with what they bave to pay in Australia and other countries, in the Argentine Republic and in Brazil, and that man will go somewhere else to seek a location on account of the exorbitant freight rates.
I am sorry the Minister of Railways thinks we cannot get a measure of relief from this commission. I think, however, it would be well to give the experiment a trial. I have studied the report of the railway commission in the United States, and I find that outside of the question of freight rates altogether they have been a great advantage. I do not suppose a railway commission would cost more than $40,000 or $50,000 a year, not too big a sum for a country growing like this. There are a hundred ways in which it could be a benefit to the people. Take, for instance, a poor farmer in the west whose cow or horse is killed on the railroad track. He makes an appeal to the railroad corporation for compensation, and if they feel disposed in the kindness of their heart, they will give him something for it, but in case they refuse to pay him he is at their mercy, and can do nothing, because they will carry the case from court to court, and finally to the Privy Council, and the poor man will be ruined. If you had a properly constituted railroad commission that poor man could carry his case before them, they would investigate it, and if they found that he had a just case, they would order the corporation to settle with him, and if they refused to do so they would have the government to deal with instead of that private individual.
The hon. member for Norfolk said this afternoon that the Grand Trunk Railway had not paid more than 11 per cent on the money that had been invested. And what is the reason ? Because the money has been wasted. There is a case in point, an object lesson for any gentleman who has passed over the road between this town and Toronto. I have looked out of the window and seen about 50 miles of railroad graded upon which there had never been a tie or a piece of iron laid. That road cost about $600,000 of the money of these poor widows and orphans the hon. gentleman was talking about. If there had been a properly constituted railway commission existing in this country at that time, that money never would have Mr. DAVIS.
been wasted, because a charter would never have been granted.
The Minister of Railways thinks that parliament would be denuding itself of its powers by placing the control in the hands of a railroad commission. I never made a proposition of that kind. What I said was that when an application was made to this House, and that application was handed over to a railroad commission for them to examine into the facts and report back to this House, on that report parliament would be in a position to deal intelligently with the question. That is what I said. With all due respect for the members of the Railway Committee, I do not think that they are at all times seized with all the information that they should possess. Some gentleman comes there with a beautiful map and places it on the wall and shows the point where the road is going to, and perhaps it does not go within a hundred miles of the point shown on the map. That is about all the information they get, and we pass these charters. I would like to know how many bogus and straw charters there are in this country at the present time. You have them all over the North-west Territories; you have railroads running to Hudson Bay and Timbuctoo, and everywhere else, on which there has never been a shovelful of mud turned, and never will be. But these people come back to parliament and ask for an extension of time so that they may be able to keep this charter until something turns up so that they can turn it into money; or perhaps under a government that is a little soft in that respect they may be able to get a subsidy, and then they will have something to sell. I say if a properly constituted commission was in existence, we would not be troubled with this charter-mongering. We have suffered from that in the west.
Take- the case mentioned by the hon. member for Grey this afternoon, the Great North-west Central. That charter was granted some twenty years ago, it bore a land grant of 6,400 acres per mile, they built 50 miles, and they never built any more until forced by this House two or three years ago to build 20 miles, and that is all that they have ever done. Still the people have settled 100 miles ahead of that line, waiting for relief, and nothing is being done. I hope the government will see its way clear at least to try the experiment of appointing this railway commission. The Minister of Railways says there is a disposition in England to do away with the commission. But, we find in the United States for the last 25 years they have been in existence, and I am sure that the people in that country are too intelligent to keep anything of that kind in existence if it was of no benefit to the people.
We find that the reports of every state that has a commission are placed before

the country, and you can see exactly what they are doing. I would advise all the hon. members of this House to take the trouble to read these reports, and, as the hon. member for Bast Grey (Mr. Sproule) said this afternoon, they would find from them that a great deal of benefit had accrued to the people. I am sure that when the hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) shuffles off this mortal coil the people of the North-west Territories will erect a monument to his memory, because he has always exerted his influence, so strongly in committee and out of committee in their interests. From a political standpoint, 1 would like if the hon. gentleman would come out through the North-west Territories and express himself as he has done in this House this afternoon. It would be the best thing that could happen for the Liberal party. I believe it would do them more good even than the trip of the late leader of the opposition (Sir Charles Tupper), because, in place of having six seats in the entire country west of Winnipeg after the elections as is now the case, the opposition would then have none. I hope the government will, in the near future, see their way clear to do something in the way of trying to give the settlers, not only in the North-west Territories, but of other parts of the Dominion, the remedy that is needed by appointing a railway commission.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, I would like to say a word. So far as this motion is concerned it does not seem to point to anything very definite. The motion is :
That the public interests demand that the railway companies of Canada should, at the earliest moment, be brought under control of a board of railway c mmissioners, clothed with full power to enforce the provisions of the Railway Act.
Well, the Railway Act is enforced to some extent by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, and possibly to some extent by the courts, and it is occasionally difficult to find out whether you are to go to the court or the Railway Committee of the Privy Council with a particular matter. So far as that uncertainty or difficulty is concerned, it seems to me that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) may very well devote his attention to it, and amend the Railway Act for the purpose of making that clear. I had occasion some time ago to examine the Railway Act with respect to a difficulty between two railways, and I found a great deal of legal difficulty in knowing whether or not you should go to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council or to the court. That is a subject which might very well be dealt with by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals in framing legislation. As to the project of transferring the power to enforce the
provisions of the Railway Act, so far as they are enforceable by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, to a railway commission, that depends to some extent on the question as to whether the Railway Committee of the Privy Council is found to be an efficient body for the purpose for which it was intended. There may be something in the suggestion which has been made, I think, by the hon. mover of this motion (Mr. Davis), with respect to the want of time on the part of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to deal with these matters, but, on the other hand, we have the assurance upon which, no doubt, we may rely, of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, that every case which has been brought before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council has been dealt with by that body. I understand the hon. gentleman to give that assurance to the House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, that is so.


Robert Laird Borden: The rest of the motion is clothed in terms almost as delightfully vague as those in which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals expressed his intentions in regard to this commission in the future.
And to prescribe and enforce the observance of such regulations as may be necessary in the public interest.
I think almost every hon. gentleman In this House may be permitted to support the principle of this resolution in regard to that, but, possibly, when we came to decide among ourselves as to what regulations were in the public interest, there would be a good deal of divergence among hon. members on one side or the other as to what these regulations should be. However, so far as that particular portion of it is concerned, it is worded in such a delightfully vague manner, that I am sure there is hardly an hon. gentleman in this House who will have the heart to say a word against it.
I agree with the hon. gentlemen in this House who have doubted whether it is possible by means of a railway commission, or by any legislation, to bring to an end the evils and the complaints in respect to railway transportation. So far as a railway commission is concerned the words in this resolution mean nothing at all. The question is : What powers are you going to give the commission ? Are you going to give it merely advisory powers, as in Massachusetts, or the power of a court, as in other states ? What do you mean by a railway commission ? That is the thing you must decide in the first instance, and the House can not be prepared to pass upon the subject intelligently upon any such vague resolution as this. You must first

bring down a measure, and say whether you are going to have an advisory commission or to give it the power of a court, and you must reasonably define all its powers, before we can intelligently discuss it. It does not seem to me that there is really anything very definite in this resolution. Undoubtedly a railway commission will not necessarily bring to an end the evils which have been spoken of here to-night. That is perfectly plain from what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has told us, and from what other hon. gentlemen have told us in regard to the state of affairs in England to-day. If a railway commission would bring all these evils to an end, the farmers of Waies would not be complaining that it costs them more to carry their produce to London than it costs the farmers of Ontario to carry their produce to London. I do not suppose it is possible to cure a matter of that kind by any legislation. As the hon. Minister of. Railways and Canals has pointed out, this is a very complex question. You have to take into consideration competing lines, you have to take into consideration the lines which compete by water and the lines which compete partly by land and partly by water. You cannot cure all of these matters by appointing a railway commission and passing Acts of parliament. The great complexity of business transactions makes it absolutely impossible to deal with matters of this kind to the satisfaction of every one, and possibly makes it necessary that incongruities of this kind should sometimes exist.
I do sympathize with the remarks of the hon. mover of this resolution respecting the granting of what he calls straw charters and the giving of enormously large bonding powers to railway companies. I do not believe that railway charters, or any other charters in this country, should be made the subject of speculation, and I also recognize the fact that this is an evil which may not be very easy to deal with. I have tried to think out in my own mind some remedy for an evil of that kind, and I may say that I have not completely satisfied my own mind as to what would be the best mode in which to deal with it. It occurred to me that possibly if we required from the promoters of every new railway company the making of a deposit which would guarantee good faith and an intention on the part of the people who received the charter that they intended to build the railway, good might result, but possibly the only effect of that would be that when they came to sell the charter they would charge a higher price from the persons to whom they sold it. I do not at all feel sure as to what the proper remedy is, although I entirely agree with the suggestions of those who believe that some remedy should be found. Bonding powers should correspond *with the cost of the road in some reasonable Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
degree. There are two reasons amongst others for that. The first thing that occurs to me is that by giving too large bonding powers you may be leading into a trap unwary in* vestors, and in the next place, although the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals assures us that the question of the amount of bonds, or the question of the amount of stock does not enter at all into the consideration of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council when dealing with rates, nevertheless we know that these things are put forward in the public press, if they are not put forward any place else. That is an additional reason why the bonding power should be carefully guarded, and I take it that the Minister of Railways is of tlie opinion that these should not be unduly extended. I hardly thought that the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) gave sufficient weight to what was suggested by the hon. member from Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall). What the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) said was that if all or the majority of the great railways of Canada combined in a vast trust with persons who became possessed of enormous interests in connection with the coal and iron aud other industries of the country, there might be fear in the future. I do not think the hon. member intended to suggest, nor do I intend to suggest, that there is any present or immediate danger in Canada of that kind. I am not suggesting that, but we know that so far back as in 1880 in the United States it was publicly charged that great trusts did exercise a very pronounced influence upon legislatures. In fact the statement made by responsible persons went very much further than I have indicated. I am only suggesting, in passing, that possibly what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) said might require a little more serious consideration than the Minister of Railways was disposed to give it upon his attention being first directed to it. It seems to me that in its present form the resolution is so extremely vague as not to commit the House to anything beyond the proposition that a railway commission could do the work of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council better than the work is being done by that body. I am not sufficiently familiar with the way in which the Railway Committee of the Privy Council discharges its duty to say whether that is the case or not, but if we take, as we are bound to take, the statement of the Minister of Railways on that point, it seems to me that that particular portion of the motion hardly seems to be justified by anything that has been advanced in support of it.


Mr.  E. B.@: OSLEIt (West Toronto). There is just one point to which I would draw the attention of the House, because it may give some indication of the wild statements that have been made by some hon. gentlemen in this discussion. The hon. gentleman from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) has referred to the Regina and Long Lake Railway. If he

will refer to the railway returns he will find that the gross earnings of that railway company for the last year amounted to $100,702, and the working expenses amounted to $115,500, so that the road was operated in favour of the country through which it passes and In favour of that hon. gentleman's constituency at a direct loss of $15,000. If the road had been built for nothing-as far as the country is concerned it was built for nothing-it has paid its bondholders or shareholders not one dollar interest, and it is being operated now at a loss. It has been operated at a loss since the day it was opened. It was a very unfortunate thing to build a road in such a country, but the origin of that road was because the government wanted to build a railway into the Prince Albert district after the rebellion. The reports in the department at that time showed that the land through which the railway ran was supposed to be good land, but it has turned out that the land is barren land until you get near Prince Albert. I can see no future to the road, and unless some change takes place there is only one thing that can happen to it, and that is that the road must be closed up.


Thomas Osborne Davis: It should never have been built.


Mr. OSLER.: Quite right, it should never have been built; but it cannot be continued to be run at a loss and the question of the exorbitant charges have nothing to do with the working of that road, or with the rates which may be charged upon it.
Motion (Mr. Davis) agreed to.


VIRDEN, QTT'APPEDLE, REGINA AND MOOSEJAW TOWN SITES.
Mr.  E. B.@: OSLER (West Toronto) moved for :
Return of a certain report presented to the Department of the Interior by the commissioners appointed on June 19th last to audit all accounts and investigate and report upon all matters connected with the administration and sale by trustees of the town sites of Virden, Qu'Appelle, Regina and Moosejaw.
He said : I wish to make a few remarks on this motion, because perhaps there are very few hon. gentlemen in the House who are aware what this Town Site Trust is. In 1882 the Canadian North-west Land Co. bought about two million acres from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and with that they bought a half-interest in the town sites from the western boundary of Manitoba to the boundary of British Columbia. For that they paid at the rate of one-half dollar an acre extra, or nearly a million dollars. The government asked that they should be interested in certain town sites along that district, and consequently the government obtained a half-interest in four town sites, Regina, Virden, Qu'Appelle and Moosejaw.
Trustees were appointed to administer the town sites, and the trustees were Lord Strathcona, Mr. R. B. Angus, Mr. Scarth and Mr. Osier. Those trustees administered the town sites and they sold altogether about a million dollars worth of lots. They administered under an agreement with the government, and I think they acted strictly under the terms of that agreement. In June last the government appointed a commission to inquire and report on these town sites. The report was brought in and it was handed to two or three of tjie government newspapers, and in January last these papers, the Globe especially, commented upon that report. The Globe headed its article :
Money Flew Fast In the Good Old Tory Days- Discoveries made by the North-west Townsites Commission-Fleecing the Government-How Mr. T. M. Daly made a handsome price for land in which he had no rights-Mr. Davin's loan- How the Government was made to pay for Mr. Davin's Newspaper Plant-Heavy Refunds to Speculators, some of them represented by trustees-Large sums paid out in Unauthorized Salaries-Cash Statement-Government out about $50,000-Names of Witnesses called before Commission-Mr. Osier Objects, to Testifying-Text of the Report of the Commissioners.
Now, the Globe makes a summary of the report, the main points of which are : That Mr. Daly received $6,400 for a section of land in Virden which had really belonged to the government. The renting and final purchasing of the building of the trustees by the government at an exorbitant price. The trustees lending the money to Mr. Davin to start a newspaper. The trustees refunding various sums to persons who had bought for speculative purposes ; the government charged improperly for many town sites; and that Mr. Osier, Mr. Scarth and others drew large sums of money in salaries and otherwise. Now, the land which the government contributed toward those town sites realized in the actual sale not much more than one-third of the whole amount; that is to say, the land contributed by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the other parties was very much more valuable.
I have a report here by Mr. Hamilton, the land commissioner, and Mr. Ogden, the auditor and comptroller of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in which they answer these charges as they are made. As regards the Virden town site, Mr. Daly had a claim upon it, and it was necessary to secure that claim at once, or the sale of the lots would have been lost; the station and town site would have been located elsewhere :
The agreement, for the administration of the town sites states the amount of land to be contributed by each party. In the case of Virden, the entire quantity is to be contributed by the government. There is nothing unusual in this, as at that time any party owning land was very willing to give all the land to have a station and a town site located, retaining a half interest in the net proceeds of sale of lots in the town. The commissioners find that Mr. COMMONS
Daly had rights on the south half of the section until he dismissed the entry, which was probably done when he was paid $6,400. The government contributed the section and the $6,400 was paid to clear the title. The whole amount should have been charged to the government instead of one-half.
With regaitl to Mr. Davin. At that time I had not the pleasure of knowing Mr. Davin personally ; but the loan to him was made for the purpose of establishing a newspaper in the new government town

a very wise and necessary expenditure. I think that even notv the government feel that it is necessary in some cases to contribute to the support of newspapers. I notice in a return that one newspaper published in the largest city of Canada, receives in pap or in contributions $40,000 or $50,000. The amount in question was contributed quite properly, and was an investment which paid, because advertising had to be done ; and while the newspaper was apparently carried on at a loss, Mr. Davin's covenants were released, when the property had to be taken back by the trustees, which was a very proper thing to do. Certain money was refunded at Regina, after full consideration and investigation, because very large taxes were running up there, and that had to be done in the interest of all parties.
It is claimed that certain salaries were paid to Mr. Scarth, Mr. Campbell, and others as extra clerks. These salaries were perfectly proper, and were chargeable to the trustees and the government. The Canadian Pacific Railway in the same case paid a very much larger sum for salaries than was charged to the government. The trustees, X may say, in connection with the administration of these town sites, have never personally drawn one dollar. Report says that X drew a certain amount-$500. I did draw an amount-I think it was $1,200. I drew that money when the office was being removed and certain clerks were being discharged. I saw no other way of bonusing those men ; and, as I was entitled to remuneration as a trustee, I drew a certain insignificant amount for that purpose. The administration of this trust, amounting to $1,000,000, has been carried on without the expense of one dollar charged by the trustees to the government; but if they appealed to a court in Ontario to-day, those trustees would be awarded a remuneration of at least $50,000 for their work. Thousands of deeds and thousands of agreements have been signed. A gratuity was paid to Mr. Gosling, who, when the business was large, was employed as the chief accountant. The business fell off, and naturally he was paid a comparatively small sum on leaving the trustees. Now, I make the statement that from first to last there has never been a trust in Canada administered so faithfully, so squarely, so thoroughly, for the benefit of all concerned.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is charged further that there were certain rebates made to parties who purchased town lots. That is quite true. Rebates were made to a great many town lot purchasers, amoung others to a Scottish company. Mr. Scarth was connected with that company. It had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds, I think, in the development of north-west interest. It had established a stock farm on the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway, and had brought out high-class cattle, the result being that from along that line to-day probably the finest cattle that are brough from the North-west come. Too much credit cannot be given to the enterprise of that company. Unfortunately, the venture proved a failure. The trustees, with the consent of the government, refunded to that company $30,000 or $40,000 of the money which they had expended in town lots in Regina. So far for being blamed for that, I say the trustees are entitled to every credit.
I can understand that probably it was a proper thing for the government to have a report made on this subject, although every year audited statements were submitted to the government, approved and accepted by the government, and the money due to the government was paid over. But this report was made, and was handed out to one or two government newspapers, apparently for the purpose of having those newspapers comment upon two or three gentlemen connected with that trusteeship. They singled out one of the trustees, who has been for a number of years a government official. Perhaps his place was wanted, and a little excuse was necessary. The chief attack, however, has apparently been made upon myself. The report closes with a statement that Mr. Osier objected to testify. I did object to testify, but under these circumstances. The two commissioners came into my office one morning with a shorthand reporter, their secretary. They began asking me questions concerning this town site in 1882, before I had anything to do with it. I was not a trustee until nearly a year and a half after that. They began to ask me questions about financial matters, about payments that took place eighteen years ago, and I replied that I was quite unprepared from memory to talk about such transactions. The books had been taken from Toronto seventeen years ago, I think, and I did not see them after they had gone to Winnipeg, and concerning the transactions referred to, I knew nothing personally. I told those commissioners that perhaps I could tell them where and how they could get information, but if they were going to examine me on matters that occurred nearly twenty years ago-matters connected with figures-I refused to testify without having the books sent down from the North-west. In that refusal, I think I was perfectly justified.

I do not think that the commissioners were justified in completing their report by emphasizing, as they did, the fact that Mr. Osier was the only one who refused to give evidence. The only inference that can be drawn, as far as I can see, is that the government expected to find some serious irregularities in the administration of that town trust, and the commissioners found that there were no irregularities. The report was given out to two or three newspapers, which made this severe attack. As soon as the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is the only company having anything to do with the government, was apprised of this report, it asked the government for a copy of the evidence. This report was published in the Globe on the 5th of January, 1901. But up to this date, the government have failed to comply with that request. These two commissioners, acting by themselves, taking what they saw fit to take, looking at the books as they liked, brought in an account showing that the trustees are liable to the government for $40,000, and asked them to put that to the credit of the government.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who were the commissioners ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Smart and Mr. E. F. Stephenson. The Canadian Pacific Railway is directly responsible to the government for the administration of that trust. These trustees were accepted by the government, but the Canadian Pacific Railway was the original trustee, and assumed all liability for the share of the government's money that would accrue. Application was made to the government for this evidence, so that a more complete answer might be given, but that evidence has not yet been furnished. The Canadian Pacific Railway then asked that the government refer the accounts to a commission or to a court, and the government simply wrote saying : We do not propose to take further action in this matter ; place this money to our credit.
The trustees, one and all, for a long time have desired to resign. They wish to have this trust divided and be no longer partners with the government. They applied to the government to have this done, and the government at one time accepted the suggestion, but since then the government have changed their minds, and only on the 27th February last they wrote to Mr. Hamilton, the land commissioner :
Dear Mr. Hamilton,-I have yours of the 23rd inst., with reference to a division of the remaining lots of the towns of Virden and Qu'Appellc-, Regina and Moosejaw. In reply, would say that it is not thought advisable to make a division at the present time.
This is a report of the commissioners on the four trustees, who each assumed equal responsibility-Lord Strathcona, R. B. Angus, W. B. Scarth, E. B. Osier-and it casts a slur upon the administration of those gentlemen. Yet, in the report, from end to end, there is not a single item, which is not a credit to the administration of that trust from the beginning to the end. There is not a single item or transaction which has not been approved by the government. There is not a single item or transaction, in the whole administration of that trust for nearly twenty years, which does not reflect credit on the ability, honesty, and forethought of the trustees. Those trustees have administered that trust for themselves, for the North Western Land Co., and for the government, the government receiving half of the net proceeds. They have sold in that time within a few dollars of $1,000,000 of town lots at prices running from $10 up to several thousand. Of course a good many of those sales had eventually to be cancelled after the boom burst and the purchasers could not meet their payments. The trustees have paid the government some $200,000 for its half-interest, when the real interest of the government in the land sold was only $132,000.
There is one other complaint made by the commissioners which I have overlooked. They say that the Canadian Pacific Railway took to itself some acres of land at $3 an acre, but the only objection that could be raised to that is that the Canadian Pacific Railway should have paid anything, because the agreement provides that both the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway shall have all the land required for railway or government purposes free.
I do not propose to comment upon this report. If I were to express myself as I feel, I am afraid I should be called to order very suddenly and sharply by the Speaker. But I cannot understand how such a report came to be issued. I cannot understand how the government could have asked to have such a report made, or to have that report issued exclusively in two or three partisan journals, with the headings outlined and whom to attack marked out, and then have refused to give at once a copy of the evidence. I cannot understand how the government should refuse to dissolve a partnership, after bringing in a report which is interpreted by the newspapers to mean that these trustees have administered wrongfully that trust. Why the government should have refused absolutely to dissolve the trust and allow the trustees to withdraw from the administration is something I cannot understand. Who instigated this report, I do not know. I only know that it was issued apparently for the purpose of doing harm and injury, and issued in such a way as to try and mislead the public and cast a slur upon the trustees, who, I venture to say, have administered the property in such a way as no other public trust has ever been administered in this country.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I do not know that

I can find fault with my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) for the tone In which he has discussed the report, a copy of which he has moved for. It might, perhaps, have been expected, under the circumstances, that my hon. friend would take an early opportunity of making a statement to the House which would explain, to some extent at least, the statements which were made in the report referred to. Some of the remarks my hon. friend has made would naturally leave a somewhat incorrect impression upon the minds of hon. members-though I desire to be understood as not in any way imputing that my hon. friend has intended to mislead the House. In the first place, so far as the refusal to furnish the Canadian Pacific Railway Company with the evidence upon which this report was made is concerned, I never heard of any such refusal until I heard it from my hon. friend just now. If the company had made application to me or had made application in such a way that it would have come before me personally-and I may say that the company has not shown any great backwardness in coming to my office and calling attention


Edmund Boyd Osler: I may have been misunderstood as to the refusal. I have delayed asking this question, and the government have been applied to for a long time back, since shortly alter the report was made, and they have lulled to send the evidence. After the report was made, one would have thought that the evidence would be sent, but, up to this date, neither the Canadian Pacific Railway nor I have received nor been able to get the evidence.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: What I was saying was this, that the government is not in the position of having refused to give a copy of any evidence taken by the commissioners; and I was proceeding to say that if the company wrote an ordinary official letter and did not receive it, they could have called my personal attention to it, and they would have received the papers without any delay whatever. So, there has been no intentional refusal to furnish any evidence or papers whatever. As to how this report came to be made- and as my hon. friend assumed a moderate tone in discussing the matter, I do not purpose going into the subject at length or making any strong remarks in regard to it, because the report will speak for itself when it is laid before the House-when I had been in office for some time, I experienced some difficulty in dealing with the accounts of the trust to which my hon. friend has referred; and, from time to time, it is necessary, for the purpose of carrying on the business of the department, to get more information than we were able to procure. At different times. I thought I would cause an examination of the accounts to be made for the purpose of getting an exact record of what had taken place. I may say that I Mr. SIFTON.
had not the least notion, in bringing about this examination, that my hon. friend or any of the trustees had been guilty of any personal dishonesty; but I thought-and I think now-that, as the minister responsible for the conduct of this business, it was my duty to direct an investigation into these accounts so that, as the minister responsible, I might know what had been done with the moneys, and also know in what manner the business had been conducted. The commission to make the examination was issued to two gentlemen both of whom are first-class accountants and both men thoroughly competent to conduct such an investigation, one being Mr. Smart, the Deputy Minister of the Interior, and the other Mr. E. F. Stephenson, who was an officer of the department before I took charge of it, and who is, I believe, a son of the late Rufus Stephenson, M.P. Mr. Stephenson is a most trusted officer of the department, one of the most competent in the service of the department. These two gentlemen went through the various accounts and made a thorough investigation and report. Now, the question whether the report is correct or not is a question which, if it is disputed, cannot be decided by an adverse statement made by Mr. Ogden, the' auditor of the Canadian Pacific Railway nor by a statement made by my hon. friend on the floor of this House. I have no intention of entering into an argument that the report of the commissioners was founded on fact. These gentlemen spent some time, I believe, in going through these accounts. It was a very laborious task, I was informed. The report speaks for itself. If its accuracy is disputed, that question can only be settled in the proper quarter by a judicial tribunal. The report having been made, we asked the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, who are responsible for the due performance of the trust, to place to our credit the amount of money which, the commissioners concluded, had been improperly charged against the government; and I think it is only necessary for me to state the facts to the House in order that the House may perceive that that was my plain duty under the circumstances, and that I could do neither more nor less. So far as the suggestion that my hon. friend has made that there was anything further than an effort to investigate this matter which had been made part of the business of the department and to have a proper record of it, and, when moneys were found to be due to the government to have them placed to our credit, I can only say there was nothing in my mind except simply to accomplish that purpose. And I submit, with all confidence that nothing further has been done. The question whether the moneys were properly charged against the government, whether the moneys found by the commissioners to be due to the government are to be paid or not is one which my hon. friend and I

cannot settle by debate in this House. I am free to say that I cannot agree with some things my hon. friend says. I cannot agree, for instance, in connection with the town site of Virden, that it was proper to charge the government one-half the cost of the town site when the government furnished half the land-I do not think they should be called upon to pay $3,200 for land they had furnished themselves. Then, to speak in connection with cases that seem very clear, I do not think that in the case of taxes paid by the trustees, all the taxes should have been charged against the government.
I am not going into a discussion of that, further than to say that the commissioners found that in the case of the taxes which were paid upon the property which the trustees held in trust, the government owning one-half of the land, the Canadian Pacific Railway one-quarter, and the Canada North-west Land Company one-quarter, the Canada North-west Land Company alone was liable for taxes. The trustees paid the taxes and they charged it up against the fund, so that the government had to pay its share of the taxes for which the Canada North-west Land Company was liable. The commissioners make a plain statement of the fact, and show that the money ought to be refunded. I have the report in my hand in which the commissioners state the facts. If there is any answer to that, it will be for the Canadian Pacific Railway, for my hon. friend and his co-trustees, to show it when the proper time comes. I have simply to say that upon the face of it, the report does not at all indicate that my hon. friend's statement is correct when he says there was nothing objectionable in regard to the transaction of the business by the trustees. When I say that, of course, my hon. friend and every member of the House will understand that I am not in the slightest degree suggesting there was anything improper from a personal standpoint, but only that close and personal supervision was not given by the trustees. In fact 1 presume my hon. friend had not an opportunity to give that personal supervision. Lord Strathcona, the High Commissioner, is equally responsible with him, and I do not suppose that Lord Strathcona ever saw or heard anything connected with it since the very early days of the trust.
But if my hon. friend thinks that there is anything in the slightest degree objectionable with regard to the position the department has taken, I can only say to him that the report having been made after full and careful investigation by gentlemen who were thoroughly competent for that purpose, and I am satisfied thoroughly unbiased in every possible way, I conceive it to be my duty to see that that money is collected and placed to the credit of the government. As for the government refusing
to agree to a division of the property concerned, I may say that I have never refused to make a division of the property. In fact for the last two years, I have desired that there should be such a division. My hon. friend will see that before we can have a division of the property we must have a settlement of the account, and the government are quite prepared that the account should be settled and the property divided as soon as possible. I have no desire to enter further into a discussion of the matter. A copy of the report will be duly laid upon the Table of the House, and hon. members will have an opportunity of judging of the statements for themselves.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Minister of the Interior would have us believe that the government is always quite willing to refer this matter to the courts. Now, let me read him what Mr. Drinkwater says on the 9th of January:
1 have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, informing me that the report of the commissioners who recently held an investigation in connection with the management of the town sites of Virden, Qu'Appelle, Regina and Moosejaw, a copy of which accompanied your letter, had been approved by order in council. I understand from these documents that the government proposes that the lands comprised in the town sites in question shall still he managed and dealt with by the present trustees, and in the manner indicated by that report, namely, that the sale of the lots shall be made to extend over a term of two or three years, in which time sales by public auction at intervals of certain of the lots could be held until the whole are disposed of. I am directed to say that this company prefers that the trusteeship be ended at once, and that a partition take place between the parties interested in these lands without delay. I shall be glad to know that this course is acceptable to the government, and that you are prepared to discuss the best method of carrying it into effect.
On behalf of the North-west Land Company that same request is made to the government. Then there Is another letter from Mr. Smart dealing with that question, and finally a letter on the 27th of February, referring to the question, pending the settlement of the accounts, In which he says :
X have yours of the 23rd instant, in reference to the division of the remaining lots in the towns of Virden, Qu'Appelle, Regina and Moose-jaw, and in reply would say that it Is not thought advisable to make a division at the present time. Will I return your maps to your address in Toronto?
There is a distinct refusal to make a division, no reference to a settlement. Now, then, with reference to the other matter of referring the question, the department say :
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, having reference to the report of the joint town site trustees, in which you intimate that the company would desire that the question a3 to placing to the credit of the

government the sums mentioned in the report as being due to the Crown should be submitted to the Exchequer Court, and requesting that a copy of the evidence taken by the commissioners may be forwarded to you on which to prepare the company's case, and you ask further whether the course suggested as to referring the matter to the Exchequer Court is agreeable to the government. In reply I am directed to say that the government has not decided upon any course with regard to this matter, except to ask the_company to make the necessary credits in the books of the trustees, so that the amount mentioned in the commissioner's report may be shown to be due to the government in this connection.
Now, it is plain as anything can be that the government refused to submit that matter to the Exchequer Court or to any court. They say that an amount of money arbitrarily found by partisan commissioners shall, without any reference, be at once acknowledged by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and by the trustees to be due to the government. That is directly and absolutely asked. In reference to the request that the matter be referred to the Exchequer Court, surely I am justified in saying the government refused to recognize that course. I think it is unreasonable, unfair, it is not the proper course to take under such circumstances. If the government found that the trustees were indebted to them and the trustees refused to acknowledge it, their only honourable course would have been to refer it at once to arbitration, or to some tribunal. These figures are arbitrary figures brought in by partisan auditors. On the other hand, the accounts sent in by the trustees from year to year have been approved by the government, the moneys have been paid to the government during all the twenty years they administered the trust, five years of which were under this government, to which they rendered statements in exactly the same manner as they rendered them under the late government. The trustees had no indication or suggestion from the government that everything was not absolutely right until this report was published in the Globe. That is the first that we ever heard of it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think my hon. friend is trying to make a grievance where no grievance exists. The letter of Mr. Smart to which he refers is in regard to the question of submitting the matter to the Exchequer Court, and merely stating that the government had not decided finally upon a course. If the Canadian Pacific Railway secretary suggested a certain course, the government was not called upon immediately to assent to that, the government was entitled to give the matter consideration. The trustees have been handling this money and doing this business for many years.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the hon. gentleman is in order in speaking again.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am aware I am not in order.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is not a matter of personal explanation


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is not a matter of personal explanation, but my hon. friend was out of order when he rose to reply to me.


Robert Laird Borden: No, he was not out of order. I do not want to object if the hon. gentleman has any personal explanation to make.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not object at all.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is a matter of public business, it is not a matter of personal explanation. What I was about to say was that my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) is endeavouring to make a mountain out of a molehill. He has endeavoured to show that we have refused to refer this to the courts, because Mr. Smart simply said that the government had not decided upon that course. In so far as the other question is concerned, to which Mr. Smart's other letter referred, the letter is simply one of a similar character. It does not make a final decision, nor does it profess to do so. I think my hon. friend will find, when he comes to go into this matter with the same degree of care that the commissioners have gone into it, that his ideas upon the subject will undergo somewhat of a change, and I think he will find that the statement he has made, that this is the report of partisan auditors, is not justified by the fact. If the word ' partisan ' is used in the sense in which it refers to the political proclivities of the commissioners, certainly, Mr. E. F. Stephenson could not be considered to be a partisan of this government, and I think, therefore, that the personnel of the commission was as fair and as free from partisan bias as it could possibly be under the circumsances.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would ask to have the evidence produced.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That can be included in the motion.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The motion is amended by including the words ' with the evidence.'	.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and motion, as amended, agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Experimental Farms for the year 1900.-(Hon. Sydney A. Fisher).
Edmund Boyd Osler: 



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The resolution respecting the Pacific cable will probably be the first order, then' Supply, with the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) on deck.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 5, 1901.