Oh, no. Listen to what the article says:
The Government will appoint an arbitrator who will be told to try and meet the other man's views, and when the two agree the value of the third man's views will be nil.
And that is always the case, Mr. Speaker. Further, the article says:
Isn't this a nice way to camouflage Ibe public with the so-called arbitration? Judge Cassels might just as well stay at home. He can't stop the farce.
I have had considerable experience in matters of expropriation in the City of Montreal. When land or anything else is expropriated and a board is appointed, one commissioner is named by the city, a second by the interested parties, and when these two cannot agree on the choice of a third, the Judge of the Superior Court names the third commissioner. Past experience tells us, Mr. Speaker, that the view expressed in the Star as I have just Tead it to the House is absolutely correct. Now, if I were one of the three ministers referred to in the article from which I have quoted I would not rest passively under the imputation therein contained. The Minister of the Interior, unconscious of any suspicion in regard to himself, generally accuses us on this side of the House of being influenced by the interests of the Canadian Pacific railway. But the three ministers who are mentioned in this article have never given the House any absolute and clearly defined statement of their position on this question. All they have done has been to present us with a maze of figures and make lengthy speeches.. The President of the Canadian 109
Pacific railway has made it clear that that corporation has no interest in trying to influence the Opposition in this House in connection with this measure, and hon. members have no foundation whatever for any charge that we on this side are so influenced. Some ministers have held up the possibility of control of the Grand Trunk by the Canadian Pacific railway as a bugbear to scare members into supporting this measure. The Minister of the Interior not long ago said, as appears on page 1659 of unrevised Hansard:
But I wonder how comfortable the hen. member for Shelburne and Queen's feels to-day associated with and founding his doubts and his drifting shadow of a policy upon the resolutions of the Montreal Board of Trade and the manifest and only too evident hostility of the Canadian Pacific railway; very strange that in the city of Montreal, the home of the Canadian Pacific, a city that no doubt has benefited largely as a result of being the chief centre and fortress of that railway-very strange I say it is, that there should be found the whole head and front of the offending to the Government policy on this matter. The hon. gentlemen, it is true, tracked over the whole of this Dominion in search of encouragement and landed at Bogina.
I already have challenged the Government and the Minister of the Interior to put before this House any resolution of any body approving of the action of the Government or showing that they represent public opinion on this question. No answer has been given to that challenge. We have seen a great many resolutions in opposition to the policy of the Government, and even if it were true to say that they only came from Montreal they would deserve attention.
Coming back to the position taken by the Minister of the Interior, I wish to direct the attention of the House to the position of the head of the Canadian Pacific on this question, as expressed on a very solemn occasion in the city of Montreal. It was at the opening meeting of the Victory Loan campaign in that city. That meeting was at tended by the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) who spoke of the Grand project, in the following terms:
The Grand Trunk Project.
As to the project itself he admitted that there was tremendous room for argument. Some considered that the Grand Trunk, the G.T.P. and the Trancontinental were all .part of the same scheme of transcontinental traffic, and that the Grand Trunk should he taken over to round it out. Others, equally patriotic, said that with these railways, and the Canadian Northern, too,
" for heaven's sake do not add the Grand Trunk to the general mess."
These were the diametrically opposite views. ''I will not deal with the merits of the ac-
Topic: GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Subtopic: RILL PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.