April 7, 1905

CON
?

Mr L. G.@

McCarthy. Then the hon. gentleman is quibbling, the leader of the opposition is quibbling, they say : Let the constitution take its course. As I read the amendment it is simply an attempt to get a shelter behind which to shoot. Remember, the leader of the opposition says, I do not argue against separate schools; I do not argue for separate schools. Let the constitution take its course. I have discussed this with men who are high constitutional authorities who have told me that if this matter is to be fought out in the courts the conclusion will in their opinion be as I have submitted. Now, let us consider what flic leader of the opposition said. He does not want this Bill to be read the second time, but he wants this:

Upon the establishment of a province in the Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed by Bill No. 69, the legislature of such province, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Acts 1867 to 1886 is entitled to-

Now, that is one-half. I say that under that half, if you do nothing more than simply to declare this in that way, you are riveting separate schools upon these provinces.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON
IND

Leighton Goldie McCarthy

Independent

Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY.

I am going to be fair. I think the hon. gentleman had a little to do with the preparation of this amendment. It seems to be his child, and he is inconsistent, as other hon. gentlemen are, on this question. I say if you go that far you rivet on these provinces, by the constitution, a system of separate schools. Then I read it again :

Subject to and in accordance with the

British North America Acts 1867 to 1886 is entitled to and should enjoy full powers of provincial self government-

Now, tinder that I say you will rivet upon these provinces a separate school system such as is given by the Northwest Territories Act, section 14. Now, you have got the last two" lines, and I fancy these are the lines that the hon. member for Beauharnois cavils at.

including power to exclusively make laws

in relation to education.

Now, if the hon. gentleman will supplement that by an amendment to this Bill, then he accomplishes what I am arguing for. I am going to support this amendment, notwithstanding the fact that I think the first part and the last part are inconsistent. I support it with the reservation that I am supporting the last two lines of the amendment and not the first three, because I believe that at this juncture we have plenary power to do what we like, that we should not shoot from behind hedges, that we should be prepared to say that we believe it is in the interests of this country either that a national school system is the best or that a separate school system is the best. Unless you are men enough to say that, I do not think you are discharging the duties cast upon you as representatives of the people and as members of this House. My position is difficult. X realize that I am not in a position to lead a crusade, I have neither the intellectual power nor the financial means to undertake that. But I am prepared to stand by my past principles and upon my past record, and I will vote in support of that amendment owing to these last two lines that are in it. I do not think it is effective, I think it is a sham, and I think the result will be that if the courts have to decide that they will decide that the province must accept a system of separate schools given by clause 14, unless you amend this Act as it stands to-day. The clause I suggest is that the province of Alberta shall unconditionally have exclusive right to legislate in matters of education. Unless you adopt such an amendment, you do not accomplish the purpose of these last two lines. If hon. gentlemen are going to follow it up in committee, all right; then we will have a division, and possibly we will have a division on the third reading. But six weeks is a long time to wait, and we have not yet had an announcement from the hon. gentleman as to what his policy is in this regard.

Now, I do not think it can be said that I have argued to-day in an intolerant way. I do not desire to be intolerant, I do not desire to be classed as a bigot, I do not think I am. I ask that the provinces be given the right to establish the system of schools it thinks to be in the best interests of its people. But I do not argue that we are not Mr. l. g. McCarthy.

taking away separate schools. We do not have to go so far as that, nevertheless X think hon. gentlemen know pretty well where I stand. I have no hesitation in expressing my views, I do say that if you are going to legislate that they cannot do away with separate schools, then you are imposing separate schools upon these provinces. My belief is that you should not have Godless schools, and my belief is that you should not have dogma schools. We can have schools where prayers could be agreed upon. I would be well satisfied to use the words of an eminent divine : That if they are taught in these schools simply that it is better to be chaste than licentious, better to be true than false, better to be brave than cowardly-then we will accomplish something upon which we can build up a nation, we will be tending towards unity and not separation. If we build up a homogeneous people, we will have a much more solid foundation for this country, and the west will flourish much better, than if you establish such schools, and if you have separation. I may be right or I may be wrong, but such are my views. Without desiring to trample upon the rights of anybody, I have spoken out in the way I have done. Such are my views, and they are the views which I think should prevail if you desire to build up a united Canada.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).

I will not attempt to follow my hon. and eloquent friend (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) through all the legal arguments and difficulties which he undertook to deal with. The particular object that my hon. friend had in view, I must admit, is not very clear to my mind. He started out upon a discussion which I imagined would lead him somewhere, but he, like some hunters, came out just where he went in. I will do no discourtesy to my hon. friend if I decline to accept the invitation to discuss with him or with the House the particular legal propositions which he enunciated. I did venture to call his attention to the fact that he was not giving a fair version or interpretation of the very able argument presented by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. Ij. Borden), but notwithstanding that he still followed in the error of his ways and persisted to the end in giving his own interpretation of it. Well, Sir, if his interpretation of the law is not more reliable than his interpretation of the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I am afraid it is not such an interpretation as wise men would care to follow. I did notice that there was method-I will not say in his madness-but method in his argument to a certain extent and that was that he should tell us once again-and I hope this once again will be for the last time -the history of the McCarthy family. May X remind my hon. friend, and so as to do no injustice I except the vigorous living branch of the family of that gentleman who sits on

this side of the House,-that he is not the whole family ancl may I suggest to him that he should apply to his own branch of the family the same rule as that which applies to the potatoes-the best part of it is underground.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
IND

Leighton Goldie McCarthy

Independent

Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY.

Does that apply

to the one on your side ?

Mi-. LENNOX. No, the hon. gentleman

cannot even now see the point. Probably the hon. gentleman lias so habituated himself to thinking that the mantle of that very able man. Dalton McCarthy, descended- not upon his son, for he has a son in Toronto who is a very able lawyer, but upon this nephew of his, that he cannot think of anything else. Is he like the third Napoleon of whom it was said that the only good thing that could be said of him was that he was the nephew of his uncle ? It seems to me that this possibly applies to the hon. gentleman. There was a part of his speech which was exceedingly good. It was the part in which he read long extracts from the speeches of his uncle and from the even greater speeches of my hon. friend from North Toronto iMr. Poster). The hon. gentleman told us that he changed his speech and .that he changed it since yesterday. Does he want us to follow him ? He may change again to-morrow and very likely he will, but what struck me at the time was that if he had changed it more than he did it would have been a better speech. I do not exactly know what my hon. friend is aiming at. Surely it could not be that in objecting to the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition he poses as a greater man- that he has found out something that nobody else had found out, that he is going to enlighten the country, that both parties were wrong, the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition, in a sense, between the devil and the deep sea.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
?

Mr L. G.@

McCarthy. Which is the devil and which the deep sea ?

Mr, LENNOX. My hon. leader is the deep sea.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
?

Mr L. G.@

MeCARTHY. I think I must have been deep sea fishing then.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

And so you were. I do not want to elevate my hon, friend into the distinction by talking about him. He may have a chance of fame if I talk about him for too long and I think I will leave him to his own meditation and his own speech. He spoke of shooting from behind hedges. Who has been shooting, on this side of the House from behind hedges ? He has been a long time on that side of the House, he sits behind a gentleman who skulks behind the lines of Torres Vedras, he has learned something about shooting from behind hedges and let me tell him that hon. mem-131

bers on this side of the House are generally in the habit of speaking their minds distinctly, of speaking what they think, that they have the courage of their convictions, that they are not afraid of speaking out on practical politics, but not upon these imaginary theories, which, as I say, enter nowhere and come out nowhere. What was the policy which my hon. friend throughout this discussion advanced in respect to Protestantism of which he is the champion ? To do something to prevent the imposition of separate schools upon the Northwest Territories ? I think that anybody who listened to the tirade of abuse from start to finish of my hon. friend's speech in reference to the hon. member for North Toronto, the hon. gentleman who represents the riding in which he lives, would come to the con-clusipn that from first to last his object was to apply names to the Conservative party and to heap abuse upon my hon. friend from North Toronto. I do not think that my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) will suffer much from the statement of the hon. member for North Simcoe. That hon. gentleman had a twinge of conscience when he was talking. What was he afraid of ? He threw up his hands and prayed to Heaven that lie might not inflame the passions of the people of the country. Is there any danger of his inflaming the passions of the people of the country ? Is there any danger of many people reading his speech or taking cognizance of his doings ? He varies his speeches. He need not be afraid. He will never inflame the passions of anybody. But, what was the object of it all ?-the evident object was to do a party service for the right hon. gentleman whom he has served so faithfully during the whole period of this parliamentary career and a more truckling politician has never occupied a seat in this House than the hon. gentleman during the time he has been here. He reminded me of a gentleman, who, speaking to another, was advancing the theory that men are the opposite of their fathers, that they have the opposite traits, the opposite tendencies, peculiarities, &c., and after having enunciated that principle he said : You never met my father. He was a very clever, a very brilliant and a very fine man. And, the other replied : No.

I never met your father, but on the principle of opposites, I can imagine that your father was all you describe. I am quite willing to concede to the late Dalton McCarthy all reasonable credit and I imagine that probably if the principle, of opposites, just referred to holds good, I need say nothing further in favour of the late Dalton McCarthy-hon. gentlemen will be prepared 1o imagine everything that is good of him. having my hon. friend, his nephew with us.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) began his career in this House by reading

Changing from denominational schools to separate schools.

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

Have you anything to say as far as Monseigneur Sbarretti is concerned ? asked your correspondent.

' I think all essential facts have been brought out ' answered the Attorney General.

I never met His Excellency prior to meeting him in Ottawa, nor did I ever have any communication with him, directly or indirectly. His Excellency Is under misapprenhension in thinking he met me before. The communication and memorandum which I received from him I duly delivered and communicated as he requested me to do to my colleagues. I do not see that there is any conflict in statement made by his excellency and that of my colleague, Mr. Rogers.

The request of His Excellency was certainly to be conveyed to my colleagues, and it could not be considered in any way as private. The letter of invitation is as follows:

Apostolic Delegation, Ottawa, February 20, 1905.

Hon. Colin Campbell, Attorney General of Manitoba, Russell House, Otttawa. Honourable Sir,-I am directed by His Excellency Monseigneur Sbarretti, Apostolic delegate to Canada, to write to you to say that he would be pleased to see you before your return to Manitoba. If you could find it convenient to come to the delegation, you will kindly let me know if you can come and when you will be pleased to do so.

1 am yours very truly,

ALEARD A. SINNOTT, Sec.

Now there are other aspects of the case which require attention to-day. We have this fact brought very painfully to our minds that not only has the First Minister developed lately a peculiarly tyrannical disposition, a desire for more power and a desire to manage the affairs of this country without seeking the constitutional advice of his associates something for which perhaps he may not be altogether accountable, but he has also developed a peculiar lack of memory, an unfortunate lack of memory, because, I can attribute some things he has said and done to nothing else. Nobody * would question that the right hon. gentleman was perfectly honest in telling what i occurred, I would not at all events, for I i have too much respect for the fact that he

- w as premier of the Dominion of Canada to i say anything ctf that kind, but I do point

- out that there have been some fatal lapses c of memory lately and many of them are 1 brought forcibly to light in connection with 1 this matter which is important in itself, in-

[DOT] volves as well the vital question of whether

- we shall have a proper system of govern-3 ment in this country or be controlled by 1 outside influences, sinister and improper to 3 the last degree. Now turning to the begin- ning of the statement of Mr. Campbell I e read :

Y

. Your correspondent called upon Attorney 1 General Campbell to-day and asked him 3 whether he had any reply to make in refer-

[DOT] ence to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement in the House.

Dominion lias so poor a memory or is so worried by the internal dissentions in his own camp or by the applications and pressure from without that he actually forgot- for he must have forgotten-that he had promised them an answer. Yet, he was prepared. and his cabinet were prepared, and his followers were prepared to sneer, and

Here is the first evidence of failing memory :

X regret to notice that evidently Sir Wilfrid's memory is failing him. I was in Toronto when Laurier made his speech on the Autonomy Bills.

1 do not attach any great importance to that. I will not call that No. 1 of the evidences of failing memory. It is merely a casual thing and not a circumstance which would necessarily impress itself upon the right hon. Prime Minister's mind. But the next is a matter that did concern the people of Canada and is worthy of mention, and I will proceed with that :

What about his promise to meet you in three or four days and give you an answer ?

I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that that is a matter that no representative of the people could afford to forget, or, if it were arranged, could afford to ignore. And what did Hon. Mr. Campbell say ? lie says :

I remember that very distinctly. It was when we were leaving and he requested that we should remain for three or four days and he would give us an answer. Mr. Rogers remained in Ottawa and I went to Toronto and returned especially for the purpose of keeping the appointment, and when the incident was fresh in our minds we sent the letter of February 23. in which we repeated the promise that Sir Wilfrid had given us February 17.

He says, in effect, that he has reason to remember, because he went to Toronto and returned especially to keep that appointment. And, while the thing was fresh in his memory, not Mr. Rogers alone or himself alone, but both drafted the letter and sent it. The letter was referred to by the right hon. gentleman with something of a sneer. It is not wise to sneer at the representative of a great province like Manitoba- not a very large one geographically, but a great one. That is not the first sneer of the right hon. gentleman. The first was when he told us of Mr. Haultain's position in the matter. Then too. there was a covert sneer at the position taken by the representative of the province, because, forsooth, lie would not, on a casual reference to the school question, accept the school clause proposed, and how his knee to this great government. Mr. Campbell says he came back and wrote this letter on the 17th. And he .goes on :

And, in further confirmation of this, I had intended returning immediately to Winnipeg to attend a specially important meeting that I had arranged for before leaving, and on February 17 I wired Professor Hart, secretary of Manitoba College board, that I was unable to return owing to the further interview to be held with Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Is there any doubt about the facts uow '! Do you think this hon. gentleman could be mistaken ? If he is not mistaken it comes to this, that the Prime Minister of tins

did in fact, sneer, at this matter yesterday. I think we can count that lapse of memory number one. Then this interview goes on :

Sir Wilfrid says that I did not take much part in the discussion of the question on February 17th.

Is that a matter on which one would expect the Prime Minister to have a bad memory ? Well, Mr. Campbell says :

In this I think he is likewise mistaken as I took . considerable part. I framed and moved the resolution of the legislature on which the memorial was based and was very much interested in its consideration. When we met Sir Wilfrid he asked who should speak first, and I suggested Rogers. Mr. Rogers left me to deal with the northern and eastern portion of the claim. Sir Wilfrid intimated that it was his intention to add all the territory lying immediately north of Manitoba now embraced in the Territories of Saskatchewan and Athabasca to the new province of Saskatchewan, in accordance with his agreement with the northwest representatives.

That is a matter about which there could not be any doubt. Whether that was discussed or was not discussed cannot be a subject for prolonged difference of opinion, even if it is necessary to have an investigation to ascertain the facts. It is a crucial point in determining whether Mr. Campbell is correct or not. He says further :

I pointed out to him that if the Territory lying immediately north of Manitoba, that is at the heads of Lake Winnipeg and Lake Win-nipegosis, was embraced within the province of Saskatchewan that the Dominion would be powerless to give it to Manitoba, as no part of provincial territory could be taken away from a province without legislative action of the province itself.

Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick agreed to this and I felt that we had secured an important concession from Sir Wilfrid in this respect, that he would not include the territory in the new province of Saskatchewan.

That is not a matter that the right hon. gentleman ought to forget. And yet there are peculiar discrepancies, unfortunately discrepancies between two or more great public men, the representatives of the province of Manitoba and the representatives of the Dominion. Let me here interject that the policy of secrecy, on which the right hon. gentleman seems to plume himself of late, deprives us of the opportunity to know what goes on in relation to public affairs. 1 There was no shorthand reporter present, the communications were verbal, no record was kept,'-this is a policy fraught with great danger to the public ; and I venture to

suggest that it would be much better policy to keep a record of the proceedings. And, if the policy of secrecy were abandoned and a policy of communicating to the people what goes on from time to time adopted, it would be very much more in the public interest. This is the third error. Mr. Campbell goes on :

Topic:   PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.
Permalink

ONTARIO'S CLAIMS.


Upon the discussion of the territory to be added from the district of Keewatin both Mr. Rogers and myself were very much astonished when Sir Wilfrid made the suggestion of calling in Quebec and Ontario and I asked Sir Wilfrid if the government of Ontario had ever advanced any claim or suggested that they had any claim on the district of Keewatin, to which he replied that they had not. That, I venture to say is an error too. I have looked at the returns brought down, I went to get them again to-day, but I understand they have gone to the printer. When the right hon. gentleman says-and I think the Postmaster General (Sir William Mu-lock) endeavoured the other day to substantiate it, that there had been no application or suggestion of claim from Ontario at that date, I venture to say that the records will prove otherwise. On page 15 of the records before the House there is a printed letter. That letter written on the 10th or the 6th,-if it was the 16th it shows the failure of memory to be all the worse- was written and, I think, signed by the Prime Minister, to Mr. Whitney saying : I inclose certain papers in reference to the application of the province of Manitoba for an extension of its boundaries. There is one other clause that I will read, and it is significant in many respects. It is the fourth evidence of a very decided lapse of memory. At six o'clock, House took recess. After Recess. House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.

GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.


House in committee on Bill (No. 45) respecting, the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-iMr. Macdonald. On the question: Shall the Bill be reported:


CON

Samuel Barker

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BARKER.

I do not know whether the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) is here, but if he is not this Bill should not proceed in his absence. It is a very important Bill, one of the most important private Bills that could be brought before this House, and I do think we ought to have the presence of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals during its discussion. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is in charge of the interests of the railway company which is promoting the Bill, but I think the government should Mr. LENNOX.

be represented by the Minister of Railways and Canals in any discussion that occurs during its passage.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) was present on Wednesday night or not when the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) was here, and when we had a very full discussion, not of the Bill before the House, but of another Bill which is now upon the order paper, relating to the government's policy, not in respect to anything contained in these particular Bills, but in respect to a totally different matter, not germane to anything contained in these Bills, hut relating wholly to a proposition that the government should hereafter exercise certain rights in the w,ay of users of this railway from Coteau to Parry Sound and on the Grand Trunk from Coteau to Montreal. The hon. gentleman will probably recall that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals then stated that upon moving in the House the Bill which he proposes to introduce to amend the Government's Railway Act all the information relative to the purport of the Bill or to the question, which I presume my hon. friend is interested in, will be given by him to the House. I presume my hon. friend desires to direct the remarks, or the criticisms, if there are criticisms, not so much to anything contained in these particular measures, but to the governmental policy relating to the users of the railways affected by them in the future. Speaking on behalf of the company-not on behalf of the company any more than that the Bill has been entrusted to me-I would like to submit to tbe committee and to my hon. friend from Hamilton that the discussion, if there is to be one. or the suggestions, if there arp any to be made, should be such as would be pertinent purely to the propositions contained in these measures. There is no matter of government policy connected with anything contained in these particular Bills and I submit that my hon. friend will have a full opportunity to discuss the proposition mentioned by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals the other night when his Bill comes on.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Samuel Barker

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BARKER.

I, from no fault of my own, was unable to be present on the evening of the 5th when the discussion took place that the hon. gentleman has referred to. I do not claim any privilege on that account. I only explain I was unable to be present. I was not well. I did desire to be present on that evening, not for the purpose particularly of discussing this Bill as regards the company that is seeking legislation, but because of the application of the Bill to public interests. It relates to the acquisition of a railway which the country is interested in and for that reason I take the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, on this occasion of asking that the Bill should not be

proceeded with at any of its stages in the absence of the minister. I say this not in relation to the principle of this Bill which has been introduced on behalf of the company seeking legislation, but because this Bill should not, in my judgment, take any stage, in committee or otherwise, without the full concurrence of the government, nor without the government's responsibility being clearly attached to it at every stage. We know that the former Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Blair, had very strong opinions as to the importance of the Canada Atlantic Railway to the Dominion of Canada as the owner of the Intercolonial Railway, and in connection with the government system of transportation. This Bill practically enables a private corporation, in so far as a corporation can be private-I mean in the sense distinct from the government of the country-to acquire a railway which a former minister, whose capability at all events nobody will dispute, thought should be possessed and controlled by the Dominion of Canada as a part of its great transportation system. There is not an hon. gentleman in this House who does not know and is not perfectly familiar with the opinion of Hon. Mr. Blair on this subject. That hon. gentleman believed after all the experience he had had from several year's controj of the government railways that the Canada Atlantic Railway should become the property of this Dominion and be controlled by the same interests that ruled and operated the Intercolonial Railway and the other government railways. Now, Sir, this Bill, although a private Bill, proposes in effect to authorize the transference of that most important railway and its connecting interests in the corporation of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which, as we know, and I say it without the slightest feeling of opposition or antipathy to the company, has interests not quite in accordance with the interest of the government railways of this country or with the interests of the maritime provinces. This Bill therefore should not proceed in the absence of ministers who speak with full responsibility on behalf of the government. According to the Minister of Railways, it is proposed to enter into some agreement-probably after this Bill has become law-to obtain for the government railway running rights over the Canada Atlantic Railway, and also over a small section of the Grand Trunk Railway between Coteau and Montreal. The Canada Atlantic is to become essentially a part of the Grand Trunk Railway system of Canada, and, as I understand it, it is contemplated that the government shall obtain running rights for the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to Depot Harbour, there to connect with Georgian bay and Lake Superior. I see that the minister has entered the chamber and I want to ask him a few questions. I understand that he proposes to give to the board

of Railway Commissioners the power to settle the terms upon which these running rights shall be exercised. He says he intends to run his own trains independently upon the same track as the Grand Trunk Railway trains are run ; and I understand he proposes that the Railway Commissioners shall settle rates from Depot Harbour to Montreal, but that the Intercolonial Railway is to remain independent of the commissioners from Montreal eastward. Much depends, not merely upon the rates that may be settled, but upon what the nature of the traffic is to be. What traffic over that section of the railway does he propose to bring within the scope of the contemplated agreement ?

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD.

May I suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) that this discussion would be more relevant when we come to the Bill on the order paper, of which the government has given notice. [DOT]

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Samuel Barker

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BARKER.

Certainly not. It is most expedient that we discuss it now, for the reason that the Grand Trunk Railway is asking power to obtain control of tbe Canada Atlantic Railway, and it is our duty to be quite sure that the acquisition of that railway by the Grand Trunk Railway may not be inimical to the general interests of the Dominion.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink

April 7, 1905