Mr. HAZEN:

The matter has not been discussed.

Mr. BORDEN:

We have an intimation

to the effect that *the imperial Government will be prepared to co-operate with us in the constitution of the court.

Section, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Mr. Speaker, before we dispose of this Bill, the House, I hope, will bear with me for a few moments while I summarize the views which we on this side of the House entertain with regard to this legislation.

The position which has been taken by the Government and their supporters all through the discussion that we have had has been that, in the introduction of the legislation which is now before Parliament, they were not free agents, that they were compelled by the circumstances in which they found themselves to ask Parliament once more to give this further assistance to the Canadian Northern Railway system, alleging that the Government's policy with regard to the construction of a third transcontinental railway was one which they found and which they had to carry out; at the same time, they have disclaimed all

responsibility and laid it altogether on the shoulders of their predecessors. For my part I have no objection, and my friends have no objection, to accept the fullest responsibility for the policy which we followed during our term of office, that this country required no less than three lines of railway in the western provinces and the provinces in the East in order to accommodate and to do full justice to the enormous trade which is already looming up, and which from year to year must develop between the different portions of our country, and in order to fill the gap, which up to the present has been the greatest danger to Confederation and which still exists, on the north shore of lake Superior, and at last to open to the fullest to the Canadian people all the latent wealth which has been dormant for ages between the Laurentian mountains and the shores of Hudson bay.

With regard to the second transcontinental railway, the Government of to-day can well disclaim any responsibility. While they were in opposition they combatted with all their might and power and influence the very idea of that legislation. If they could have prevented it passing they would have done so; and since they have been in office not only have they not made any effort to carry out to the fullest the idea which we had in view and which was embodied in that legislation, but they have more than once done their very best to take away from that road its transcontinental character and make it simply a local railway.

But towards the third transcontinental railway, the Canadian Northern railway, they have always shown great tenderness. They never offered any obstacle whatever to its construction nor opposed any grant of money for assistance of any character that was asked from Parliament for this road. Any appropriation that was demanded they cheerfully voted up to 1911. In 1911, when we proposed to subsidize that railway to connect the lines which lu*l already been built by the Canadian Northern railway in the western provinces with the St. Lawrence at Montreal, they did not exactly assent, neither did they dissent. They raised some doubts and expressed them, but their doubts and protests, if protests they were, were rather of the kind of a young dam,sel, who, receiving an offer of marriage, by her answer does not discourage but rather encourages the suit to be pressed on. So it was with [Sir Wilfrid Laurler.l

the Canadian Northern railway, and the company was not slow to act upon that impression as soon as the present Government assumed office. In the very first session that the present Government were in office, in the year 1912, the Mackenzie and Mann system, the Canadian Northern railway, were rapping at the door of the treasury to have it opened, and to have it opened in a way and for a purpose which we had refused, that is to say, for the extension of their system through British Columbia and to the waters of the Pacific at Vancouver. In the session of 1912 the Canadian Northern, railway asked for a subsidy from Edmonton to the summit of the Rocky mountains at the Yellowhead Pass and thence to Vancouver. The subsidy for the first part of the line from Edmonton to The Summit a guarantee of bonds at the rate of $35,000 ia mile, over a distance of some 116 miles; upon the line from The Summit to Vancouver, a distance of some five hundred miles, a cash subsidy of $12,000 per mile; in all a total of some $10,000,000. This was readily granted by the present Government. This request had already been refused by us, as ' we would not entertain any idea of giving a subsidy to the Canadian Northern railway in the province of British Columbia, in view of the extravagant and abnormal terms of the agreement under which the Government of British Columbia had granted assistance to the company. By that agreement, the Government of British Columbia stipulated that they .should have full control over the traffic of the road. In addition to that, wa have heard in the East much criticism of the Transcontinental railway on the ground that it is duplicating the Intercolonial. As a matter of fact, the Intercolonial is in the valley of the St. Lawrence and the Transcontinental railway is in the valley of the St. John, so that there can be no duplication. But, by the subsidy which was given by this Government to assist the Canadian Northern railway from Edmonton to the summit of the Rocky mountains and thence to Vancouver, there is not only parallelling, but I think that for three hundred miles the rails of the two lines are never more than three miles apart. Not satisfied with that, in the following year, in the session of 1913, the same parties again came to this Government for assistance, to do what? To subsidize the line from Port Arthur to Mont-

real, the very thing we had started out to do ourselves, and to this line they gave a new subsidy. On the whole, that year they received a, subsidy of $14,000,000. Now they are coming -again for further assistance to the amount of $45,000,000. So that during the four years commencing with 1911-that is, 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914,-the same men have been coming to the Government of Canada and to Parliament for assistance, and have obtained it; and if they get the assistance which they now ask, they will have obtained in four years, by these repeated contributions, no lees a sum than $100,000,000.

Where is this to end? That is the (question we have to ask ourselves. I stated on a previous occasion, and I have to repeat again, that to this railway, for my part, I offer no objection, except to the portion in British Columbia, which I think should not have been, subsidized at all under the existing circumstances. For the rest of the road I am most enthusiastic. I think it is a road that should be built, as it will serve a good purpose and is needed; but at the same time it must- be apparent to everybody that the policy which wo have been following up to this time in order to facilitate the construction of this road cannot be persisted in any longer, and we must call a halt at some time. We have been pouring and again pouring into the coffers of the Canadian Northern railway millions upon millions, until, within the last few years, it has reached the large amount of $100,000,000. What is to be done? We cannot allow the enterprise to lapse; certainly I do not want to see it lapse. (Assistance ought to he given, but given upon terms altogether different from those applicable to the assistance which is being given here. If the Canadian Northern railway had shown any inclination to take us into their confidence, put before us a true statement of their business, and show us exactly where they were, and if we could have had some assurance that this is the last call, and that they will not come knocking at our doors again, there might be some reason to treat them as they request; but we cannot have any such assurance. On the contrary, I think it is a matter of absolute certainty that, in view of the figures placed before us, in view of the undertaking which they have to carry out and of the conditions, they cannot complete that enterprise with the assistance of the $45,000,000 that is to be voted by this Parliament.

Therefore, some new position had to be taken. What is the policy which ought to have been followed? I believe that I have given this matter the best consideration that is in me. Whilst I claim to be a partisan, I hope that I have approached the subject in no partisan spirit, but simply with a view to the best interests of the country at large; and it seems to me that the solution which was offered to the House a few days ago by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) is the best that can be adopted. My hon. friend from St. John suggested that the best solution would be, first, to reduce the capital stock of the company from $100,000,000 to $30,000,000, and, second, -that the Government should take power to itself to acquire the whole system. That policy was rejected by the Government. 'In regard to the two points involved, the first, the reduction of the capital stock, is not a point of paramount importance, and, therefore, for the present, I put it aside. But as to the other, the acquisition of the railway and of +he whole enterprise, a reason has been given by the Government why it should not be adopted. What was the answer made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) when he took the floor after my hon. friend from St. John had sat down? What was the only point that my right hon. friend made? The only answer lie gave why provision for the acquisition of this road should not be embodied in this statute was that we suggested the same thing in 1904 in regard to the Transcontinental railway, and me Government of that day, the Opposition of this day, would not accept it. My right hon. friend spoke in this way on that occasion: [DOT]

In 1904, the question of public ownership was considerably discussed in this House, and tve moved a resolution declaring that as the oeople of Canada were providing about nine-tenths of the cash and credit required for the construction of the National Transcontinental railway, it would be better to provide the other tenth and own the whole line from Moncton to Prince Rupert. The right hon. gentleman scoffed at the idea of extending the principle of government ownership and operation of a line. He told us that he had gone with Mr. J. R. Booth, I think it was, to Parry Sound, had looked out upon the waters of the Georgian bay and had seen the Canada Atlantic steamers there and had made himself acquainted with all the complexities and developments connected with the operation of a modern railway system and had come to the c6nelusion that such considerations forebade the Government from embarking upon any policy of state ownership of railways.

I have nothing to disclaim of what has been stated by my right hon. friend as to my views at that time, except, that what I stated at that time in regard to having accompanied Mr. Booth to the Georgian bay had reference, not to the question of Government ownership, but to the suggested acquisition of the Canada Atlantic railway. My right hon. friend, who has a habit of looking into the past and trying to find some inconsistency in hiis opponents, may perhaps remember what I said upon that occasion. It had reference not, as he said, to the absolute ownership of railways, but to the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic which had been proposed by my right hon. friend when he was occupying the place that I now occupy. Among the many policies which my right hon. friend suggested against the construction of the Transcontinental railway, one was the .acquisition of the Canada Atlantic, and I point out to him the difficulty there would be in the Government owning the Canada Atlantic, because I had been told by Mr. Booth that the trade of the Canada Atlantic had to come from Chicago to go to Boston, and the difficulties in the way of the bonding system were such that Mr. Booth had to operoate the Canada Atlantic, as f.ar as Chicago was concerned, by way of a subsidiary American company. But I have nothing to disclaim of what I said on that occasion, or upon- any other occasion-that I never was favourable to the operation of railways by the Government. I do not say that there are not some countries mere settled than we aire dn which this might not be a good policy. I did not say that. this was a policy which might not be a good one in a country that is much more settled than ours; but in a new country such as this I thought that operation by company was preferable to operation by Government. Such was my view. I expressed it with perfect frankness and honesty to Parliament and the country at that time. With reference to the Transcontinental railway, in a country such as this, .as between Government operation and company operation,

I favoured operation by a company.

Such, however, was not the view of my right hon. friend. He believed that the Transcontinental' railway should be owned -and operated by the Government. He said if we furnish nine-tenths of the *money to construct the National Trans-

continental why not own it as well? If it was good policy, im>

the view of my right hon. friend, because we supplied nine-tenths of the money to build the National Transcontinental railway, what reason can there be why we should now not own the Canadian Northern, when we .supply not only nine-tenths, .but every cent of the money that goes into it? My right hon. friend will tell you that I have changed my views. If he does, I will tell him that lie (has changed his views; .and, if he has changed' his views and if I have changed my views, I want the House to determine Who has progressed and who has retrograded. It is for the House to determine. I have not changed my views. I am not enamoured any more of Government ownership than before, but if we have to make a choice to-day, and if the choice we have to make is between pouring more money into the coffers of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Government getting control of the road, I would rather get control of the road for the benefit and profit of the people of Canada. That is the view that I have to present to the House on the present occasion.

I said a moment ago that my intention was simply to summarize the views and the policy which we have laid before the people on this question, and I summarize them in a few words. We must carry on this enterprise; we cannot laillow it to go by default; we cannot allow anybody or anything to come in which wouild imply anything detrimental to our credit in England; this enterprise Iras to be carried out; but, instead of carrying it out in the way proposed, we propose that we should carry it out by other means-that we should take .absolute control of the enterprise; and for that purpose, I beg to move, seconded by my hon. friend from St. John (M,r. Pugsley) :

That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be resolved that under existing circumstances no assistance should be given to the Canadian Northern Railway Company unless at the same time it is provided that the Government have power, within a reasonable time to acquire the ownership of the entire stock of the oompany at a price to be fixed by arbitration, but not to exceed thirty million dollars.

Hon. L. P. PELLETIER (Postmaster General):

The right hon. gentleman has told us that he has summarized-I think I might say he has tried to summarize-the

position of himself and his party on this question. The summary to my mind is not very clear, but the reason may be, and I think is, that the position of the Liberal party in this House on this matter is not clear enough to permit of being summarized. We have had a prolonged discussion on this question, but nobody will complain of that because it is one of the most important things *which has been brought under the notice of this House during the present session. It has been said in this House and it has been repeated in certain newspapers, that we brought this Bill down in the dying days of the session, that we have not given enough time for its consideration, and that the House has not had full opportunity to do so. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has not raised that point to-day, and I think very properly so. It might be well to point out that these resolutions were put on the Order Paper on the 28th of April last, and this is the 2nd of June. The discussion on the Bill began on the 13th of May and it is not finished yet. Consequently, I think hon. gentlemen opposite will agree that we have given full and ample time for proper discussion and consideration of this matter. Let us compare the history of this Bill with what happened in reference to the National Transcontinental Railway Bill. In 1903 Parliament met on the 12th of March, and the National Transcontinental Railway Bill was not introduced in the House until the 30th of July, four months and eighteen days after the opening of the session. And so, if you compare the action of the two parties in respect to these Bills, it will be conceded in all fairness that sufficient time has been given to consider this Canadian Northern Bill.

Now that we have arrived at the last stage of this measure in the House, we are told by the right hon. gentleman this morning that the position of the Liberal party with respect to the measure is summarized in the amendment now proposed by him. That amendment says:

That under existing circumstances no assistance should be given to the Canadian Northern Railway Company unless at the same time it is provided that the Government have power, within a reasonable time, to acquire the ownership of the entire stock of the company at a price to be fixed by arbitration, but not to exceed thirty million dollars.

It will be apparent to all that the amendment is couched in vague terms indeed; it will be noticed that the right hon. gentleman has not told us what he has in mind as being a reasonable period of time within which all this should be accomplished. Let me refer first to the last part of the amendment, which says that no assistance should be given to the company unless we have the entire stock of the company, and that the cost of that stock should not exceed thirty million dollars. The right hon. gentleman has told us that this was not an essential part of the suggestion he has put before the House, and consequently the essential part of it must be the acquisition of the ownership of the entire stock of the company. I take it that the people of this country can, at any time they so desire, acquire the entire ownership of the stock of this company by having recourse to expropriation proceedings. Whenever the Government and the people of Canada think it wise that this should be done, it is open to them to do so without any such amendment as that now before us.

We have been told several times during this debate, and the right hon. gentleman has taken good care to repeat it this morning, that this enterprise must be carried out and that the railway must be completed. We are, therefore, all agreed on this point, and there is no difficulty over it. The only remaining difficulty, then, between our friends opposite and us, is as to the manner in which the enterprise should be carried out and the railway completed. On that point I would remind hon. gentleman that it has been suggested by one of the most important members of the Liberal party from his seat in the House, that assistance to the Canadian Northern railway should take the form, not of a guarantee but of an advance of money made by the country to the company. This suggestion has been made by a gentleman who has occupied the important position of Minister of Railways in the late Liberal Government, and a gentleman who is certainly one of the most prominent members of the House. In his opinion, therefore, the help which this Bill should give should be a straight loan of $45,000,000. Whether the rank and file of the Liberal party do or do not agree with that we do not know, because no formal proposition to that effect has been put in your hands, Mr. Speaker, nor has there been any embodiment of that view of the ex-Minister of Railways presented to the Committee of the Whole. But have we not the right at this moment, in view of the importance of the statement and the prominence of the hon.

wherein these statements are incorrect. That has not been shown so far. What have we done? A sub-committee of Council has been working at this for months. We have had these people before us; we have put to them every possible question as best we could; and, after having had all their answers, we have said, this is not sufficient. We have taken some of the best men in the Department of Railways and Canals, and in the Finance Department, to make a complete, searching and thorough investigation; and these men have reported to us. We have been told that this is not sufficient. But in what respect is it not sufficient? Is there anything which has been hidden from Parliament? That is the point. This is not suggested, but we are simply told, from political motives, that we might have made a more searching and complete investigation.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his colleagues, particularly those acting on that sub-committee, are satisfied in their souls and consciences that we have a complete and true statement of the facts as they exist. Under the circumstances we have come before Parliament with carefully prepared legislation. I do not think any Bill has ever been put before any Parliament which has been given the study, thought and consideration which this matter has received at the hands mainly of the Prime Minister and of the Solicitor General; and we ourselves have gone into the whole matter. The details, of course, have been more in the hands of the Solicitor General; but we are all satisfied that the statement of facts put before us and verified by our own officers, is an absolutely correct and true statement, and I do not think these facts can be contradicted by the assertion that another inquiry should have taken place. If we had made another kind of inquiry, we would have been asked: Why did you not use the officers of your own departments? I am satisfied that there is no course we could have taken that would have satisfied our hon. friends opposite, because they have to fight this matter anyway.

We are told 'that this country has given -all the money that has gone into the construction of this road. As a matter of fact, this country has not provided all the money used in building the Canadian Northern railway; $174,000,000 has been provided by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, the proceeds, if I mistake not, of their bonds, and $131,000,000 is the exact amount which this country has provided. This $131,000,-

000, as I understand it, includes all money and guarantees given by the provinces and by the Dominion.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Including the land

grants.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Not the Qu'Appelle,

Long Lake and Saskatchewan.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

What about the Winnipeg and Hudson bay?

Mr. PELLETIER:

I think that ,at this

late hour we should not enter into the details of this matter, but that we should, following the suggestion of the right hon. the * leader of the Opposition, take a general and broad view of the proposed legislation. The right hon. gentleman says that the country has provided nine-tenths of the money used in the construction of this road, and I am showing him that $174,000,000 was provided by the Canadian Northern Railway Company and $131,000,000 by the people of this country in the way of guarantees and subsidies.

The compliment which hon. gentlemen of the Opposition have paid us because we are doing our duty in coming to the aid of this company is one which we deeply appreciate. We return to them our sincere thanks in that they have realized that we are doing our duty in a general way. They say: Oh, you should do it in this way or in that way; you should adopt this suggestion or that suggestion. Looking, however, at the whole matter from a general point of view, it is agreed on all sides that in coming to the assistance of this company at the present time we are doing something which is absolutely right-something which is concurred in by the leader of the Opposition and toy other hon. gentlemen sitting on the same side of the House. No great harm, therefore, can possibly be done, when we all agree on the general policy that ought to be followed.

Having regard to these facts, I think we may well proceed now to give the Bill its third reading. We have under these resolutions a method of foreclosure, a mode of bringing this matter to a successful issue, in respect of which compliments have been paid to the Solicitor General.

I wish to add mine to those which have already been presented to him, and to tell him that he has indeed rendered a great service to this country in working out this legislation as we find it before us to-day. We shall not apologize to the country for this measure; we shall go before the people

and say that this is one of the best measures which has been introduced into Parliament and we are confident that the future will show that what we are doing now is absolutely right.

Mir. PUGSLEY:

Mr. PELLETIER:

Does the hon. gentleman expect an answer to this question tion on the third reading of the Bill?

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Yes.

Mr. PELLETIER:

Let us take this matter seriously.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

The hon. gentleman declares to-day that he is in favour of the Government taking over this railway. My hon. friend the Solicitor General stated a few days .ago that if the suggestion had been made to Mackenzie and Mann that as a condition of obtaining Government aid to the extent of $45,000,000 they should give .a>n option on the stock of the company, on the equity of redemption for $30,000,000, they would have spurned the suggestion, and the road would have proceeded rapidly towards a receivership. My hon. friend the Postmaster General is apparently in favour of the Government's acquiring ownership of this road; may I ask him if Mackenzie .aind Mann were .asked to state whether or not they would give an option upon the stock of the company, and at what price? The Postmaster General thinks that is itoo much of a poser for him just at the present moment.

Mr. PELLETIER:

I never made the

statement which the hon. gentleman says I made.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Which statement?

Mr. PELLETIER:

The statement that I

am in favour of having the Canadian Northern railway owned and controlled entirely by the Government at the present time; I never said that.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Perhaps I was wrong

in drawing too direct a conclusion from the hon. gentleman's remarks; at any rate, he

stated that he was strongly in favour of state ownership of railways, and he proceeded to give reasons why. If I am to draw any conclusion at all from my hon. friend's position, it is this: that instead of asking this company to day, when they are, according to. their own statement, in a helpless condition; when they cannot finish this enterprise without getting the Government to guarantee their bonds to the enormous extent of $45,000,000; instead of asking them to give an option on .the stock of the company, we should, according to the view of my hon. friend, help them out of their difficulty; we should help them make this road profitable and valuable; we should help them to increase the value of the capital stock and then endeavour to acquire title by expropriation and give to them whatever the arbitrators may choose to allow them. That, apparently, is the view my hon. friend takes of the easiest route towards state ownership of this railway. The Government has not disclosed to this House that information which it ought to have given with regard to the assets of the men who own this railway, Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann; of the profits which have been derived from the construction of this road -and from the financing of the securities of this great undertaking. The other day when my hon. friend the Solicitor General boasted that the Government had obtained all the securities which they could properly ask for and that Mackenzie and Mann had even handed over the interest which they had in the various town-sites, I pointed out that the greatest town-site of all, the one of surpassing value, the townsite of Mount Royal, at Montreal, they had entirely neglected to secure to this country.

My hon. friend said that there was no evidence that the Canadian Northern railway or the -Mackenzie Mann Company owned that. I pointed out the fact that there was every presumption that they owned it, that when the Canadian Northern railway came to Montreal that land which now forms this townsite was simply farm land, that the fact of the Canadian Northern railway building the tunnel under Mount Royal has given an enormous value to the townsite which they have laid out. I stated that the land was purchased ostensibly for the Canadian Northern railway, or Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited. I stated that Canadian Northern engineers had laid it out. I stated

4G40

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That is not the Canadian Northern railway.