No, I said that it cost the railway a little over half a cent to carry one ton a mile, and that if you carried 400 tons one mile it would cost $2.24. If you multiply that $2.24 by 275 miles you get the final results, namely, $616.
cost of one ton would be a little over half a cent
56. To carry 400 tons one mile
would cost $2.24, and if you carried 400 tons 275 miles, which is the distance to Halifax, it would cost $616. That is accord- ing to the return placed upon the table by the minister. What does the Intercolonial get for carrying that freight?-$300.
It is inconceivable. What are the charges that are made against the general
public in respect to the carriage of freight? This arrangement discriminates for some particular purpose in favour of the competing railway interest to the detriment of the general interests of the railway. That is my contention and I say it is one of the most iniquitous agreements that was ever entered into, that it was entered into without the authority of law and that the Government condoned and continued it. I am speaking without reference to any rival interests in this regard; I am speaking of this simply in the interest of the Intercolonial railway.
If there is any freight they utilize the cars, but otherwise the cars are carried free. I have seen empty cars going back from St. John or the other way. One of the most serious 'hitches in this agreement is that it has disorganized the traffic of the Intercolonial railway. They were short of motive power. The discontinuance of many of the suburban trains, about which complaint has been made, was necessitated by the railway utilizing the motive power in order to do Canadian Pacific railway business. Suburban trains had to be cut off. The general interests of the people 'had to be interfered with. They were discriminated against in the interests of a competing railway. Would any such agreement ;be entered into between private railway corporations? Could the Canadian Northern, which has its steamers landing at St. John throughout the winter months, secure rates anything like that between Montreal and St. John over the rails of the Canadian Pacific railway? It would not be thought of, and I venture to say that if a proposition of that kind were made to the Canadian Pacific railway they would spurn it, and properly so, in my judgment.
The Government are responsible for the management of the road. They are responsible for every act of their general manager. They are responsible for this Gute-lius-Boswofth agreement. They are responsible for the importation of men from the 206i
United States to carry on the business of the railway. I do not take the position that simply because a man is an American citizen he should not be employed 'by the Government or by any private interests. I do remember that in 1905, on the floors of this Parliament, I listened to a most severe condemnation of the Government of that day because they had condoned the employment by the Grand Trunk Pacific of American engineers in running the preliminary surveys through the northern part of Ontario and the West. The condemnation by hon. gentlemen opposite was very strong; motions were presented and complaints were made even by my right toon, friend the Prime Minister himself in respect to this matter because, forsooth, American citizens had been employed by the Grand Trunk Pacific in running surveys for the purpose of getting information for the advantage of that railway that they proposed to construct from North Bay to the prairies of the West. A commission was appointed by the Government of the day, at the demand of Parliament, to inquire into that. I believe in reciprocity of trade between Canada and the United States; I believe in reciprocity of brains between this country and the United States; I believe that we have in the pulpits and educational institutions of the United States, Canadians who stand foremost as pulpit orators and great educationists, and I think properly so; and we have in Canada, Americans of the same calibre who are occupying similar positions here. It is well it should be so, but the point I am making is that the Conservative party when in opposition howled themselves black in the face because temporary employees who were United States citizens were taken into the service of the Liberal Government, while to-day they are placing on the Intercolonial permanent officials who are not British subjects. In the town from which I come a party consisting of sixteen or seventeen men and boys is making a survey of the grades on the Intercolonial railway, and three of them are Americans.
insist on these men changing their allegiance before they appointed them to office? The complaint I have to make is that all this is done to the detriment of the employees of the Intercolonial. There is not an official holding a position of highest responsibility on the Intercolonial who was trained in the service of that railway. You can find men trained on the Intercolonial holding the highest positions in the service of great American railways, and when it appears that this Government has imported twenty-seven engineers to the staff of the Intercolonial to the exclusion of men who had been trained in the service of that railway, it will be easily seen that this system is to the detriment of old employees. The Government has even ignored the age limit in making appointments. Under the Provident Fund Act no man can be appointed who exceeds the age of 45, and if he has no railway experience his age must not be over 35. But this Government, to the detriment of the men on the Intercolonial, are bringing in outsiders from other railways, whose ages far exceed the limit of 45. One of them, for example, was 83 years old.