Mr. DANIEL.

What are we giving the $30,000,000 for.

Mr. DANIEL.

I think it is generally understood that a large railway like this can really get freight over it routed in any direction it pleases. Some time ago Mr. Loud, of the Grand Trunk railway, gave testimony to that effect before some court which was trying to find out the reason why the Grand Trunk railway did not carry out an agreement made with the Intercolonial railway. Mr. Loud said that the Grand Trunk railway or any other railway could get almost the whole of its freight routed in any way it pleased. The provision here, therefore, is not a very strong safeguard. We have not had an opportunity of testing it with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific because the road is not built, but it would look as if this provision wetre really not much of a safeguard. I should think that if the government decidedly wished to insist on the freight going through Canadian channels this clause might be made stricter and more of a compelling clause.

Mr. DANIEL.

Yes.

Mr. DANIEL.

Are all the vessels named, British vessels?

Mr. DANIEL.

I think the object of the subsidy in the first place was all right, and that it was a good thing, because it was given for direct voyages to Cuba and back to Canada. I think that is the way the contract should be continued, because it was for that purpose the contract was given, not to create trade between Cuba and New York, but between Cuba and Canada. These vessels find it much easier to get a good return cargo from Havana to New York. I think the idea of the subsidy is correct, but it should be carried out in the way of a direct voyage both ways.