Mr. MCCARTHY moved :

That the petition of the Great Northern Railway of Canada; presented this day; praying the House to suspend all rules and formal notices regarding a Bill to be introduced amending the Act incorporating the Great Northern Railway of Canada and Acts amending same by enacting that notwithstanding the provisions of section 13, chapter 40 of the Acts of Parliament of Canada, 1892 (55-56 Victoria, c. 40), the bonds issued by the company secured upon the railway, exclusive of the bridge over the Ottawa river by indenture of trust and mortgage, dated the 1st of January, 1900, by and between the company on the one part and the Central Trust Company of New York on the other part, and designated as Series A, and the bonds issued by the company upon the bridge built over the Ottawa river, secured by deed of trust and mortgage, dated the 1st of January, 1900, by and between the company on the one part and the Central Trust of New York as the other part, and designated as Series B, shall all rank equally, pari passu, both upon the railway of the company and the bridge over the Ottawa river, and the revenues of both the railway and the bridge shall be treated and considered as one security for all the bonds of both Series A and B ; that the trustee or trustees for the holders of bonds Series A and B may, in the event of default by the company, sell the railway and the bridge over the Ottawa river, together for one price which shall be distributed amongst the holders of bonds of the railway, Series A and B, without distinction, in proportion to their respective holdings, and if the railway or the bridge be sold separately, the holders of bond3 Series A and B, without distinction, will be entitled to rank upon the price realized in the proportion of their holdings respectively; notwithstanding the expiration of the time for presenting petitions for private Bills, be read and received, and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.

He said : I may say that this is rendered necessary by reason of the fact, as I am instructed, that those who were about to underwrite or purchase the bonds required, and the company agreed, that it would be wise to have the bonds on the railway and the bonds on the bridge applied pari passu on the railway and on the bridge. By chapter 40 of 55 and 56 Vic., power was given to the railway company to issue bonds to the extent of $20,000 a mile on the railway, and to the amount of $500,000 on

4407 COMMONS 4408

the bridge ; and the trustee deed recites that the bondholders and the railway company are agreed that these shall rank pari passu. As this is in a sense entirely a family matter, I do not think that the House will have any objection to the legislation being passed this session.

I was called away while my hon. friend was speaking, and did not hear that he gave any reasons for urging this legislation, or whether or not any private interests could be aftVcied by it.

Mr. MCCARTHY.

I did explain that no private interests could be affected, because it was entirely, as it were, a family matter. Thd trust deed and mortgage upon which the bonds are secured provides for such legislation. If the underwriting and the necessary financial arrangements had been made in sufficieut time for the company and the bondholders to have given notice for the legislation, that would have been done; but, that was not possible ; and as it is a matter in which only the bondholders and the company can be interested, and they have both agreed that such legislation should be applied for this session, I do not think it possible that any private interests can be affected. On the other hand, if the legislation be not obtained, it may jeo-jjardize the success of the company in carrying out the financial obligations which, by the issue of these bonds, it has assumed.

PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.) Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would ask the right hon. leader of the House to give his attention to some correspondence I have received concerning the Alaskan boundary dispute. Last year I asked in the House :

Has tiie iargo map of the Dominion. which was lately exposed to view in the vestibule of this building, been sent to the Paris exhibition as an official map of Canada exhibited by the government?

Is it true that the boundary between Canada and Alaska, commonly known as the ' Alaska boundary,' is marked on that map according to the United States contention, and that the boundary according to the Canadian, or British Columbia, contention, is not shown at all?

To this question, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture replied :

The map in question was sent to Paris as one of the exhibits of the Department of Public Works, but not as an official map. It is true that the boundary between Canada and Alaska, commonly known as the ' Alaskan boundary,' is marked on that map in two ways, marking the American contention and the Canadian contention as to the boundary, and each of these markings is distinctly stated to be what it represents, ^ so that I do not think there can be any possible difficulty or doubt as to what is meant.

Mr. McCarthy.

Last year I wrote to Mr. Begg, who has taken a great deal of interest in this question, and we both wrote to Mr. Brymner, who was then in Paris, asking him to go to the exposition and examine the map. I have not got Mr. Brymner's answer to myself, as I unfortunately left it at home, but I have a letter here from Mr. Begg on the same subject, dated 17th April, 1901 :

I have been looking over the letter sent to me by Mr. Brymner of Paris, who visited the exhibition at your request, and mine, to see if it was as represented-one provisional boundary for British Columbia and another for United States. In his letter to me dated July 17, 1900, he says : * I had your note re the frontier question, also a letter from Col. Prior, House of Commons, Ottawa, asking me to go and see if it was really as you stated, that the boundary marked ran up Portland Canal, and not up Clarence Sound, and if two boundaries were given and marked " provisional." There is but one boundary marked, and that is the one claimed by United States, and there is absolutely no mention made of its being provisional. There is no distinct colour between American and Canadian territory, so it is very difficult to trace the line, the area being so great (covered by the map) that nearly all the names have been left out, so that neither Portland Canal nor Clarence Sound are mentioned, Wrangel being the only name given in that neighbourhood.' My object in alluding to this matter now is that this same map may be sent to Glasgow exhibition, and it would be well to know if the erroneous boundary is marked running up Portland Canal, and if the British Columbia provisional boundary along Clarence Straits, as shown on British Columbia maps, is entirely left out.

Mr. Brymner's statement is undoubtedly correct, and it agrees with what I supposed were the facts of the case.

Of course, I have not seen the map myself. but if Mr. Brymner's statement, both to Mr. Begg and myself be correct, namely, that the only boundary marked on the map is that which the Americans contend for, the government is greatly to blame for having allowed such a map to be put on exhibit. No doubt if on this map only the American contention is shown, that will be brought in as an argument in favour of the United States whenever the matter goes to arbitration.

I would ask my right hon. friend whether he will find out if it be true that the American boundary is the only one indicated on this map, or whether there are two distinct boundaries marked on it and both stated plainly to be provisional ?

I shall call the attention of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to the representations of my hon. friend. I may say, however, that in view of the advice we have received from our law offi-ecrs, it is very hard to maintain that the boundary runs up Clarence channel. The treaty says in so many words the Portland canal, but there is a difference in opinion between the Americans and ourselves as to where that channel is. We claim that it is

west of Pearse Island. They claim that it is Observatory Inlet. As to endeavouring to have the line pass along Clarence channel, which is a pretension Mr. Begg has often submitted to me, I do not think any one, who will take a careful view of the matter, can be convinced of the correctness of that pretension. The point on which we and the Americans do not agree, is as to what is Portland channel. They want to make it run up Observatory Inlet and then to the west, making out that Observatory Inlet is only a small inlet running into the interior. We, on the other hand, contend that Portland channel is as it is described on the map of Vancouver on which the treaty of 1825 seems to have been based, namely, all that channel of water which runs west of Pearse Island.

Hon. Mr. PRIOR.

I do not think that this has anything to do with the question whether the map is wrongly marked. Whatever boundary is described on it, should be marked provisional.

The only provisional line we have agreed upon is around Lynn canal, and if my hon. friend will look carefully at the relief map which is exhibited in the library, he will see that that is the only provisional line we have agreed to.

Mr. BOURASSA.

On the 11th March, the House voted two addresses, calling for correspondence between Canada and the British government regarding the enrolment of the Baden-Powell police force, and the commissions granted Canadian officers in the British army. Part of the correspondence is down, but that which I want especially, the correspondence between His Excellency and the Secretary of the Colonies, has not yet been laid on the Table.

I have recently given orders to have the correspondence and papers brought down, and they will be down in a day or two.

Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).

Mr. Speaker, this question has already been thoroughly discussed, and I do not propose to detain the House at any great length with further discussion of it. I must say that in the first instance, I was in favour of granting this charter to the Canadian Pacific Railway to build from Teulon to the Narrows of Lake Manitoba, but the discussion which has since taken place has served to convince me that it would not be proper to grant the charter. Various reasons

were brought out in debate which have led me to believe that the best policy for this House to pursue would be to refuse to grant this charter. The question is very much larger than the mere one of deciding whether this particular charter shall or shall not be given, or whether the sixty miles of road shall or shall not be built under the Great North-west Central charter. It seems to me that the details now under discussion show that there is a principle involved very much larger than would appear on the surface- a principle, I think. Sir, which is closely associated with the foundation, so to speak, of the railway position in the Dominion, so far at least as concerns the opening up of new districts and the giving communication to districts into which settlers have already gone, but which have not, up to the present, been given railway communication. To illustrate the principle to which I refer, I would ask this question: Should or should

not railway companies which, by their charters, are bound to certain responsibilities and duties with regard to particular districts, be allowed to assume further responsibility before they have shown their ability to meet those they already rest under ?

The particular matter under discussion, it seems to me, sheds light upon the broader question of which I speak. As I pointed out the other day, we have large districts in the North-west Territories, north of the Qu'Appelle valley, in which there have been for years several hundreds of settlers. The Canadian Pacific Railway to-day stands- and for the last three or four years have stood as another company stood before the Canadian Pacific Railway-under agreement to give these people railway communication; and up to the present that agreement has not been fulfilled. The other day the hon. member for .South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) laid particular stress upon the agreement involved in the granting of a railway charter by this House, and he read a lecture to the House upon the duty of parliament to strictly observe the agreement involved in the giving of these charters. I could not help thinking that that was rather unnecessary, for I had not in my recollection a single occasion when parliament showed any disposition not to observe its end of the agreements with railway corporations. On the other hand, it seems to me, parliament on many occasions, has shown too great a willingness to allow railway corporations to depart from their end of the agreements. In the case to which I referred last Monday, as I have just said, the Canadian Pacific Railway stands-or rather stood, until a few days ago when they came down and got a new arrangement with the sub-committee of the Railway Committee of this House-under agreement to give that particular part of the country railway communications immediately. They came down the other day and

asked an extension of time, and immediately got a compromise and an extension of time. Year after year they come to parliament and ask permission not to fulfil their agreement, and on nearly every occasion parliament very kindly grants the permission. I think there can be no successful dispute of that part of the case so far as regards this charter covering the North-west Central country. But after they had come to this House and pleaded their inability to fulfil their agreement with parliament and with the people residing north of the Qu'Appelle valley, aud after they had arrived at a compromise with the sub-committee of the Railway Committee of this House, they make application for a charter covering something over 100 miles from Teulon to the Narrows of Lake Manitoba in the province of Manitoba. They thereby showed that the plea which they made before the sub-committee was not altogether a true plea, for the request for this charter is in effect a declaration that they are financially able to go on aud build a hundred miles of railway. However, 1 do not propose to g<5 at further length into that point. The question I wish this House to answer this afternoon is whether a company should be allowed to assume further responsibilities until it has shown its ability to fulfil the agreements under which it already rests. Some lion, gentlemen say that it is not proper for parliament to seek to compel anybody to build railways. I am willing to agree to that; but I think it is quite proper to compel a railway company to build a road which it has agreed to build-which is certainly the position of the Canadian Pacific Railway with regard to the North-west Central. The right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), on Monday last when we were discussing this question, suggested that those of us from the North-west Territories who were making the contention that I am making this afternoon were, to some extent standing in the position of the dog in the manger-that we were ready to declare that unless the needs of the settlers in our own districts were met we wrouId endeavour to prevent the meeting of the needs of the people in other parts of the country. I beg to submit that that is not the case in the present instance. If it were the case,

I would not srand here and oppose the granting of this charter. The position, as I understand it-and I may say that my information on this subject is gathered from statements made by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), who represents that part of the country-is that there are practically no settlers in the section of the country through which this Teulon line is intended to run. This being the case, those of us from the North-west who oppose this Bill are not taking a stand against any settlers of the province of Manitoba. And here let me point out another reason which Mr. SCOTT.

should weigh with this House. If this charter is granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the district through which this proposed new road is designed to run may be in very much the same position in the future as the district of which 1 have been speaking, north of the Qu'Appelle valley, is in to-day. The Canadian Pacific Railway at present have the North-west Central country practically pre-empted. They have a small portion of the line built, and the people beyond that are thus practically prevented from dealing with any other railway builders or promoters than the Canadian Pacific Railway people. This is, as I say, a practical pre-emption in favour of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Suppose the Canadian Pacific Railway is granted a charter over this proposed route from Teulon-and I do not speak as I do because it is the Canadian Pacific liailway that is to get this charter; I would speak the same way if it were any other company, say the Canada Northern, the Mackenzie and Mann interest. The Canadian Pacific Railway, having got this charter may build a few miles, but they may fail to complete the line. Immigrants, knowing that the charter is granted and supposing that the line will be built, will probably push in there. But the Canadian Pacific Railway, instead of giving these people railway communication may come to parliament and ask for extensions of time. They come here every year aud ask for extensions of time for some or other of the railways for which they hold charters in the western country. If this is done, we shall have gentlemen arising in the House and telling ns that we should not deal harshly or arbitrarily with the company, that our interests are bound up with theirs and that we must grant the extension of time or their interests, and the interest of Canada, will be detrimentally affected. With regard to this particular charter, it appears from the information that has been placed before this House, that this application is in the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company alone. It has not been shown that any person along the proposed line of railway is anxious for the road to be built, or anxious for this charter to be granted. On the other hand It has been shown in a manner to leave very little doubt that there is practically no person on the line of railway who is interested in the matter, and who wants the road to be pushed on. It came out clearly, in fact it was admitted before the committee by the representatives of the company, that they did not hope to reap any traffic from this road until they had passed the Narrows of Lake Manitoba and got into the Dauphin country. The Dauphin country, as the House knows, is already well served by the Mackenzie & Mann road ; the Dauphin section of the Canadian Northern road already serves the people in that district: and while

I suppose they would have no objection to having a second line built and thereby securing competition, still we hear of no outcry from the people of the Dauphin district, no evidence that they are anxious for this line.

No doubt one reason that will be urged against adopting the proposition I make against the third reading of the Bill will be the technical reason that the matter was threshed out in the Railway Committee, and that this House should not reverse the decision of the committee. Now I pointed out the other day that the particular matter which we brought up was not threshed out in the Railway Committee. A certain phase of the question was brought forward by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), and that was threshed out, and when the consideration of that business was finished, the time of the committee expired and the committee adjourned. The committee met next day at 10.30 a.m. in place of 11 a.m. I, myself, and other gentlemen from the North-west did not know that the committee was meeting at 10.30. For my part I went to the committee at 11 o'clock that morning for the purpose of bringing this matter before it, and found to my surprise that the committee had already been sitting half an hour, and that tiie Bill had already been reported by the committee. But even if it were the case that we had failed intentionally or for another reason to bring the matter before the committee, I would ask the House not to allow that technical reason to prevail. No matter what may be the fault of particular members, that * should not affect the real position of the question, and I would ask the House to give its verdict upon the reasons presented in opposition to the Bill and not upon any technical reasons. With this explanation I move that the Bill (No. 26) be not now read the third time, but that it. be read this day six months.

Mr. DAVIS.

As I have the honour of having brought this question before the House in the first place, I desire to say a few words on the amendment. Regarding the contention of some hon. gentlemen that this Bill having been threshed out in the Railway Committee we, the members of the Northwest, should not now reopen the question in the House, I want to say that so far as I am concerned the Bill was not threshed out in the Railway Committee. As my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has stated, the Railway Committee, on the morning this Bill went through, met at 10.30 a.m. instead of the usual hour of 11 o'clock. T have been in this House for five years, and I had never known an occasion that the Railway Committee met at 10.30 in the forenoon. I did not look at the paper that was sent me, so I did not know the hour the committe was to meet ; therefore I think the North-west members have a right to

avail ourselves of the privileges of members of the House to discuss this question on the present occasion, inasmuch as it is of a special interest to our part, of the country. With regard to the principle which is laid down in the discussion of this question, 1 want to say that that principle has beeu adopted, it was adopted the other morning in the Railway Committee by the Minister of Railways and Canals with reference to this very same Bill. Now what are we asking for ? The Canadian Pacific Railway came down to parliament and asked for a charter to build a road from a certain place in Manitoba to a point called Sifton's Landing in the Dauphin country. They are asking for a franchise that will in the course of events become very valuable ; therefore I think it is only right that we, representing the west, should ask the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to build some portion of the road for which they already have a charter. We have taken the ground that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are not asking for fresh charters for the purpose of constructing roads, but for the purpose of preventing other corporations from building these roads, in other words, keeping them from going in and occupying the ground. Now with reference to this question of principle, I find in looking over the Statutes of 1899. 62 and 63 Vic., chap., 58, an Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, that section 1 of this Act says :

The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter called ' the company,' may construct, acquire and operate a railway from a point at or near the north terminus of its Stonewall branch, in the province of Manitoba thence northerly and north-easterly to a point on the west shore of Lake Winnipeg, between Gimll and Arnes; and also a railway from a point at or near Reston, or. the company's Souris branch, thence in a general westerly direction to a point in the Moose Mountain district, thence in a westerly and north-westerly direction to a point at or near Regina.

I find by this Act that the Canadian Pacific Railway have actually a charter to build this road to Gimli on the shores of Lake Winnipeg. I suppose the Minister of Railways and Canals was aware of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had a charter, and when they came down to the House and asked for this charter for the Teulon branch, the Minister of Railways and Canals moved in committee an amendment, which was carried, and which was to this effect: That the company would not be allowed to exercise the powers granted under this charter they were applying for until they had carried out the conditions of this old charter, the conditions of this charter I have in my hand, and went to work and built this road into a place called Gimli so as to give the settlers in that portion of Manitoba railroad communication. Now in carrying out that very same principle we ask that the company shall not be allowed

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).

Mr. Speaker, the position which is taken now by the western members is more sound than the one that was taken the other day when they wanted to amend this Bill by adding a clause which would have the effect of forcing the construction of another branch of railway as the condition of the granting of this charter. Now they simply ask that this charter should not be granted at all on account of the Canadian Pacific Railway not having fulfilled their obligations in respect to another branch. When the question came up the other day, I had occasion to take part in the debate, simply because I desired to point out that the Northwest is not the only part of the country that is suffering from such a state of things. I think that the hop. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), though looking at the question from a local point of view, has put his finger upon one of the great inconveniences in this country, that is, that we grant charters with too great facility to railway companies, and that when these companies are organized, we grant them facilities for building new branches without looking with sufficient care to what they have done in so far as their past obligations are concerned. As I pointed out the other day, a company, the name of which I have forgotten, received a charter twenty-five or thirty years ago for a line, and it began the building of that railway. The charter was for a railway from Montreal to Lake Temiscamingue through Laval, Terrebonne, Ottawa, as it was before the division of the county of Ottawa was made, and Pontiac. Afterwards they allowed their charter to

become null. Then a new charter was obtained from parliament. Then they entered into a lease with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and they finally sold their charter to the Canadian Pacific Railway without any provision being made for the completion of that branch. Of course, if I were to take the same position as is taken by the hon. members who have complained of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I would say that the Canadian Pacific Railway are entirely responsible for the neglect to build that road ; but, the fault rests with the directors of the old company, who sold their charter to the Canadian Pacific Railway without taking proper care to see that the rights of the people interested in the building of the railway should be protected. Therefore, the Canadian Pacific Railway became the owners of the charter without any obligation whatever to construct the line They simply waited for the proper time to build it. Now, I do not think it would be a matter of justice on my part to come here and ask that the Bill should not be granted for another branch of the same line until that branch, in which the settlers to whom I have referred to are interested, is completed.

I think each case should be judged on its own merits, but, at the same time, it emphasizes the fact that the government, who, after all, have complete control over legislation, private as well as public should look with more care into the charters that are asked for, either by new companies or by old companies, to extend their lines. The government should give more attention to the additional powers that are asked for by companies from time to time to increase their transportation facilities. It occurred to me the other day, that it was most improper to couple with the Bill then before the House, an outside question which had nothing to do with it. However, that may be, the government should adopt some means to insure that railway companies should be obliged to fulfil their obligations. We are sometimes told that the best way to force companies to carry out their obligations is to catch them when they come before parliament for subsidies, but when they ask for subsidies it is for a special railway, and if we then make objections because they have not built another branch,

| the reply is always ready : That we should i not object to subsidies being voted for this special line, but that we should reserve ! our objection until the company ask sub' sidies for the line which w,e complain has not been built. It is evident, however, that if a railway company refuses to build a branch, those interested will have a long time to wait before the company would ask for a subsidy for that branch. We all know that when the Canadian Pacific Railway wants to build a branch railway they find a way to ask for a subsidy, and they probably will get it if the railway is deemed necessary. The question now before the

House is another illustration of the evil which exists, not only in the North-west Territories and Manitoba, but in all the provinces in Canada. When a charter is once granted by parliament, the plea is set up afterwards that we have no right to object, but, it may happen frequently that the objection develops ten years or twenty-five years even after the charter has been granted. No charter should be granted to any new company, nor to any existing company, for the extension of their line, until we have valid reasons for granting the charter, and until we have evidence of the good faith of those who seek the charter, that they will build the road, and not hold that charter in order to prevent other parties from getting a charter over the same ground. Although I cannot support the motion of the hon. member (Mr. Scott), I do say that the government should study the question as to whether these charters should not be granted with a little more care. When once they are granted the government should take means to see, that the object of those charters is accomplished in due time and with satisfaction to the people. For my part, I would be glad if the government should take action in this direction, because in the counties of Labelle, Wright and Pontiac, settlers have gone in for the last ten or twenty years, and have undergone heavy sacrifices in opening up new land, cutting timber, and performing ail the arduous duties of pioneer life; yet, these settlers are to-day without any railway accommodation. That not only places the settlers in a bad position, but the whole province of Quebec is loosing revenue, as the settlers have to burn the very finest timber because of lack of means to send it to the market. After the pine, spruce and hemlock have gone, there remains the very finest maple and birch, which are the raw materials for valuable industries in the province of Quebec, but which we are now not able to forward to the manufacturing centres. There is a branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway extending 100 miles, but there it stops. Another company cannot apply for a charter because the Canadian Pacific Railway has the field occupied, and there is apparently no means of forcing them to build the line further. Although I must vote against this resolution, I repeat that I hope the time is not far distant when the government will study the question of taking more care in the granting of charters, and of seeing that the obligations held by the various railway companies under these charters are fulfilled.