1901-05-18

INLAND REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 144) entitled ' An Act to amend the Inland Revenue Act.' He said : The object of this Bill is to abolish section 3 of the Inland Revenue Act, which reads as follows
3. There shall be a commissioner o£ Inland Revenue, who shall be the deputy of the Minister of Inland Revenue, and an assistant commissioner, who shall be also inspector of Inland Revenue, both of whom shall hold office during pleasure.
And to appoint in lieu a Deputy Minister. The new clause proposed reads as follows
The Governor in Council may appoint an officer who shall be called the deputy of the Minister of Inland Revenue and who shall hold office during pleasure.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
- RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 145) to amend the Railway Act. He said : The Bill only consists of one clause. Its object is to interpret and explain the meaning of the word ' facilities ' in one of the sections of the present
[Stage Direction]
Railway Act. Some doubt has arisen, in administering the Act, as to what the word ' facilities ' means. We have adopted the English interpretation, and are practically incorporating that in our present law.
Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Is that in line with what you contended in the past ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Quite in line.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COWAN moved that the petition of Eudora Sibbald, praying for an Act empowering the Commissioner of Patents to extend the period of the duration of her patents for improvements in machinery, be received forthwith.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: This is the motion which was introduced yesterday by my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson), which I asked him to let stand over for consideration. The inquiries which were made lead me to believe that the House might fairly entertain this motion and receive the Bill. I understand that Senator Dandurand introduced a Bill into the Senate with regard to the possible extension of patents under certain circumstances for cause assigned, but the Bill was withdrawn, and the Senate agreed to take this particular case into consideration. They went into it very carefully and have reported a Bill. This is only to give effect to what has taken place in the other House ; and as the matter has been fully considered there, I think we may fairly receive the petition.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COWAN moved that as it appears from the Minutes of the Senate of the 10th of May, 1901, that Bill (No. 99) respecting the Credit Foncier du Bas-Canada, and to change its name to the Credit Hypothgcaire du Canada, was discharged from the Orders of the Day, the accountant of this House be authorized to refund the fee and charges paid on the said Bill, less cost of printing and translation.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 142) to provide for a further advance to the	Harbour Commissioners	ofMontreal (Rt.	Hon.	Sir	Wilfrid	Laurier),
was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,	,
Mr. BLAIR.: '	.


Mr. SPROULE.: The question was asked before to what extent Montreal is indebted1 to the Dominion now on loans of this! nature ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The amount is $2,000,000; bearing interest at 34 per cent, which in-* terest has been paid up to date.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is drawing the same rate of interest ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, this is drawing the same rate of interest as our last authorized loan, which has not yet been issued. In the older Act it is 34 per cent, in the last loan we fixed it at 3 per cent, and in this loan we fix it at 3 per cent.' The rate was changed several years ago.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



BILL WITHDRAWN.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 123) to amend the Manitoba Grain Act, 1900-Hon. Mr. Bernier.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider certain proposed resolutions respecting the subsidies to railway companies and towards the construction of railways and works therein mentioned.-Hon. Mr. Blair.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: We will take the revotes, on which I suppose there will be very little discussion, as the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) is not here at this moment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before we proceed with these resolutions, would the right hon. gentleman tell the committee the amounts that are proposed to be voted for railways for eacli of the provinces separately?


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is information which I could not give off-land to my hon. friend. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has gone for his papers, and probably when he comes in he will be able to give the hon. gentleman the information. In the meantime we can proceed with the items which are simply revotes.
For a line of railway from Sunnybrae to Country Harbour, Nova Scotia, and from a point at or near Country Harbour Cross Roads to Guysborough, in lieu of the subsidies granted by 1897, chap. 4, and 1899, chap. 7, sec. 2, par. 34, not exceeding 80 miles, $256,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: There is a correction to be made in the point of starting of this line. I will give the words in a very few moments. It should be from a point at or near New Glasgow.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked the right hon. Prime Minister a few moments ago whether he could give any information as to the amount of money to be voted for railways in each of the provinces. He replied that as the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was not in at the time, he might possibly toe able to give that information when he arrived. I would now ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals if toe can give me ttois information ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Speaking from memory, the amount voted for Ontario, including revotes and new votes, is $1,250,000 in round figures; Quebec, between $700,000 and $800,000 ; Nova Scotia, between $900,000 and $1,000,000 ; New Brunswick, between $400,000 and $500,000, and Manitoba, $112,000. There is only one vote in Manitoba. I may point out to lion, members, in regard to one of these votes of $313,000, for a line in the northern portion of the Island of Cape Breton, that the line is practically completed, but in order to make the question of the vote absolutely clear, it is necessary to repeat, with a few words of variation, the vote, so that it is not even revoting a sum for a railway which has not been commenced.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I can scarcely hear a word that the toon, gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) says, but I understand that there are no changes in these revotes except the particular one that the toon, gentleman mentioned-No. 8.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No change.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART, Yes. You had better commence at No. 1, and if there are any changes from one line to another, specify them.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The first one we have disposed 'of. The only change is in regard to the point of starting.


John Graham Haggart: How far are the two points of stalling apart?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Inside of 20 miles.


Mr. FRASER.: No, no.
* The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I said inside of 20 miles-12 or 15 miles.


Mr. WILSON.: In what year was the original vote granted?


The MINISTER OP RAILAYAYS AND CANALS.: In 1S97.


Uriah Wilson: I am opposed to all this kind of thing-.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What kind of thing?


Uriah Wilson: Giving bonuses to railways.


The AIINISTER OP RAILAYAYS AND CANALS.: Giving subsidies to railways?


Uriah Wilson: Yes ; I do not know whether this is the proper time to bring up the whole question or not.


Hon.   A@: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: It seems to me, from all I can gather, that the country generally is ripe to stop this for the time being, at least. AVe had a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway standing up in this House and telling us that he thought the time had come when railways would build their roads into the sections of the country that they thought would pay them, without any bonuses from the government. I know that in the section of the country whence I come this has been a burning question for years. They have opposed this railway bonus system for a number of years, and especially since the Patron movement started. In 1896, the Patron candidate who opposed me had as one of the principal planks in his platform, opposition to railway bonuses.


Air. HUGHES (Victoria).: AAras he elected?


Uriah Wilson: He was not, but I can tell my toon, friend (Mr. Hughes) that so strong is this feeling in the riding of Lennox that my opponent in the last election came out at the convention which nominated him as a strong out and out supporter of this govj eminent, and he had no hesitation in telling the convention that toe believed we had the best government Canada had ever seen.
Some hon. AIEA1BERS. Hear, hear.


Air.   AVILSON@: Aly hon. friends opposite say ' hear, hear,' but it all depends upon what you consider a good government. If a good government is a government that will break all its pledges and fail to carry out. its promises to the people, then this is a good government and no doubt the best Canada has ever seen, but if a government which does all that is a bad government then this is the worst government we have ever had.


Air. BENNETT.: Where is your opponent now ?


Air.   AVILSON@: He is in the post office at Napanee.


William Humphrey Bennett: Got his reward again ?


Uriah Wilson: At the convention which nominated the Liberal candidate there was a discussion, and the Liberal candidate was obliged to announce his position on the bonus system, and I have here what he said.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: Oh, do not read it.


Uriah Wilson: I think I will. I would like to oblige my old friend on this occasion but I cannot do so.


William Ross: This is not the time to give a history of the whole question.


William Humphrey Bennett: Open your mouth and shut your eyes and bowl them through.

.5475

547G


Uriah Wilson: I think the government want to know the feeling of the people in the different constituencies in reference to their railway bonus policy, and as this is early in the parliament they will have an opportunity to change their ways if they find their conduct does not meet with the approval of the people.


Mr. COWAN.: Give an interview in the newspapers and do not take up time with it now.


Uriah Wilson: I will not say what I was going to about my hon. friend (Mr. Cowan). Here is what Mr. Leonard, my opponent in the last election, said :
I am not in favour of the present system of bonusing, and believe that public money should be expended only for the public good, and I shall oppose any measure calculated to enrich a private individual or corporation at the expense of the public.
He was obliged to take that position because some of the strongest men in his own party refused to support him unless he did. Then, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) wrote a letter in 1894 to a gentleman who lived in my constituency who was a prominent Patron, and Sir Richard Cartwright pointed out how absurd it was for Patrons to oppose Liberals, and he tried to show that the Patron policy and the Liberal policy were exactly the same. Sir Richard Cartwright enumerated a lot of things in which the two agreed, and amongst these was that they were against bonuses to railways. In 1894 the hon. gentleman said that the Liberal party were opposed to bonusing railways, but I have never yet heard him give an explanation, or try to give an explanation, for his changed opinions in this l'egard since then. It seems a little strange that these gentlemen on the Treasury benches changed somewhat the mode of giving bonuses when they came to power. In 1S97 they made a condition that where a railway got a bonus of over $3,200 per mile, that railway was to carry the mails for ten years free of charge. But when they came to give bonuses the next year, they changed the order a little, and they made a condition that railways should pay 3 per cent interest on the moneys advanced to them, if the government employed them1 sufficiently to earn that amount. When that Bill was going through I took occasion to ask the minister, if, in case the money was not earned in the year, would it be carried forward and charged against the company. The minister replied : That it would not. but that it would be written off. I said that was hardly a business way of doing things, and he replied : We are not doing this on business principles. Well, all through the government are not doing things on business principles. Since this government has come into office it has voted over $18,000,000 in the way of sub-Mr. BENNETT.
sidies or bonuses to railways. It is true that they have not all earned their subsidies and the subsidies have not been paid, but the government has paid out $5,883,000 on these bonuses, and they have pledged the country to pay the balance. To-day we have the government asking for a renewal of some of these subsidies that have not been earned.
In my opinion, unless the companies have earned their money the bonuses should not be renewed except for some very strong reason. I asked for a return in reference to the matter, and I find that none of the 3 per cent interest has been earned, and none of it paid. Is it possible that the government has paid out nearly $6,000,000 to railways with which they had no business to transact ? If the government had no business with these railways, how much business would the general public have with them ?
It does seem to me that these railways could have given some of the money back, if the government had mails to carry, but my impression was then, and it is now, that the government wanted to give this subsidy to the railway, and that they inserted this clause in order to make the people believe that it was only a loan although the government had no intention of living up to the spirit of the law. 1 am not going to trouble the House with reading extracts ; I will merely ask my hon. friends opposite to look at some of the Globe editorials for the year 1S97, in which it is stated plainly and above board, that these bonuses are worse than waste, that the time has come when they should be stopped, that a railway that will not pay should not be built, and that the railway business should be put on the same basis as any other business. Why is it that we have so many people coming to this parliament asking for charters ? Are they men who will build the roads or are they men who only want to get the charters for what is in them, thinking that if they get a charter they will get a bonus, and then be able to peddle the charter around and make money out of it. I want to say, as the representative of Lennox and on behalf of the people of that riding, that I am entirely opposed to this system of bonusing railways.


Mr. BROCK.: I do not rise to attack the bonus system in detail or to object to any one particular item. I merely wish to urge the suggestion that was made in the early part of the session : That in this great question, in which is involved the question of transportation, it would be greatly in the interests of the country if when these subsidies are to be voted, the members in this House and the people of the country should have confidence that that money is going to be used for a useful purpose-that the road to be subsidized is in the general interest of the country, rather than, as my hon. friend says, merely a I'oad projected for the pur-

pose of getting a charter and getting subsidies from this House year after year, thus deterring more useful railroads from being built. The suggestion that was made was that a commission should be appointed, composed of men who would be experts, and who would view the whole question from a point of view away and above any local interest; so that when an application for a charter came before this House or before a committee of this House, the members would have something to go upon. It is within the knowledge of every hon. gentleman on the Railway Committee of this House that charters are applied for which many members cannot and do not pretend to understand, and are voted on almost blindly. But if such applications were reported upon by a commission composed of men like our present Auditor General, who would be above suspicion of any interest in pushing the charter, I believe millions of money would be saved to this country, and the country would ultimately be benefited by having a uniform system of transportation. It is very difficult to say what form this commission should take ; but I think the talent in this government, with such men as the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Public Works, who has shown such an interest in the development of the country, more particularly in the development of our great waterway, the St. Lawrence river, of which we are all so proud, should be equal to such a task. Such a commission would inspire confidence in the people of this country generally, and its reports would enable us to vote money intelligently in the general interest of the country, instead of following a sort of go-as-you-please policy, as we have been doing for years-voting first a small subsidy, which is made a lever in succeeding sessions to get the subsidy doubled or quadrupled, until the country becomes involved in very large expenditures, as in the case of the Trent Valley canal, which I think every intelligent man in this country not actually situated on its banks, knows to have been a great waste of public money. I would therefore take advantage of the present opportunity to urge on the government to think seriously of the suggestion which has been made, and not to refuse to consider it because it comes from this side of the House. Let them give us credit, as well as their own friends, of being able to rise above party politics in a matter of such serious consequence to the country at large. Many of these grants are revotes, it is true, and the money will never be earned ; but they stand as deterrents to more useful enterprises. We have heard recently of a charter-monger who sold a railway charter for $00,000, and then turned round and applied for another running almost parallel to the one he sold. I contend that such a thing as that could be obviated if the government would appoint a commission of the charae-172}
ter I have referred to ; and if they do that, they will establish a record in this country which I believe will not have been equalled by that of any government that went before them. The great question you have to consider is not how you will manage to maintain yourselves in power, but how you will benefit the great interests of this country ; and you can do that by giving your serious consideration to the great transportation problem, and the mode in which we are going to get to the markets of the world in the most economical way the natural products of this country, which are increasing by leaps and bounds. I would ask the government to take this matter into consideration, if not at the present time, then during the recess ; and I trust that before we meet again they will have for the consideration of this House and this country a recommendation for a commission which will be able to deal efficiently with the very question we are now discussing in such a way as to command the confidence of the whole Dominion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: With regard to the observation's of my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson), as they dealt with the general question of railway subsidies, I would like a word or two in reply. No doubt some years ago there were strong opinions held by many people in this country on the general question of granting railway subsidies to roads which might in a sense be called local roads. I quite understand that at the beginning of that policy there was much room for debate ; but after it has been pursued for many years, and many sections of the country have enjoyed the benefits of it, it would be most illogical, unreasonable, unjust and ungenerous to attempt 'now to restrict it, and to say that those sections of the country which have not enjoyed its benefits at all shall be debarred from those benefits, although they have contributed towards giving them to other sections. Take the ease of my hon. friend's own neighbourhood. He comes from a section of country which has been favoured with the blessings of railway communications for nearly half a century-at any rate, for thirty years or more, since the time the Grand Trunk was constructed ; and I believe, although I have not a personal knowledge of the matter, that his district is well supplied with other railways-in fact, it has practically a network of railways ; and now my hon. friend, although he and his neighbours have enjoyed the benefits of railway construction for many years, is prepared to deny those blessings to other sections. I am sure I have only to call his attention to the unfairness of his position, to enable him to see that he should not adhere to that view. Take the particular item under notice, which only serves as an illustration-the first item, for a railway which it is proposed to run through the county of Guysboro' in Nova Scotia. That is a large county, with not a

very large population, though considerable, but with large fishing, mining and agricultural interests. It is a fair type of many counties in the lower provinces. There is a railway touching the edge of that county on the way to Cape Breton, but five-sixths of the county is without the benefit of railway communication. Prom the time of Confederation down to the present time the people of that county have contributed their mite to pay for the railroads which my hon. friend has enjoyed in the town of Napanee ; and would it be fair or reasonable for my hon. friend, after having enjoyed those blessings, and made the whole Dominion pay for them, now to turn round and deny to my hon. friend from Guysboro' the same blessings, when he has the opportunity, after many years of waiting, to get a railroad through his county ? My hon. friend says he will see whether they paid for their railroads. I would remind him that the contributions of the old provinces of Canada to the Grand Trunk form a portion of the debt of Canada, which is placed on the shoulders of the whole Dominion, and to which we are all contributing our share. I venture to say that whatever differences of opinion there may have been in former years, in regard to this policy, there are none now ; and though it was quite fair and logical for a man to take exception to the policy of granting these railway subsidies in the beginning, yet now, when that policy has been pursued for many years, and many sections of the Dominion have enjoyed tire benefits of it, you cannot go back on it, but are bound to recognize it as the fixed policy of Canada ; so that, wherever there is an undeveloped section of Canada-be it in the east, west, north or south-if they are likely to get a railway by the aid of the moderate subsidy which this government grants, I do not see how any government can do otherwise than grant it. In that respect we do not differ from hon. gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It may be that here and there some individual member of the House feels free to express his individual views, but let us understand clearly that this policy of railway subsidies, now and in recent years, has been the fixed policy of both parties, and that the very resolutions the hon. gentleman complains of as granting large subsidies, have, during the last three or four years, been supported by both sides, and I challenge my hon. friend tq point to any vote he ever gave against them. They were passed by the general consent of the House, either unanimously or without division. They are the fixed policy of the country, and so long as that policy is applied with moderation and a desire to serve the sections still requiring railway development, that is a policy which any government may be proud to present to the people of Canada.


Mr. FIELDING.: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman could not have felt very comfortable in his reply to my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson), when seated beside him as one of his colleagues who, in 1896, wrote to the Farmer's Son, the then organ of the Patrons, that the policy of the Reform party was practically that laid down by the Patrons of Industry, one of the planks in whose platform was no more subsidies to railways. The Finance Minister, by his plea, has just condemned his colleague for the principles laid down in that letter. Surely the hon. member for Lennox was, under the circumstances, justified in drawing attention to the fact that hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches have gone back on their platform.
The hon. minister referred to the debt of the Grand Trunk Railway, of which every province has to pay its share, and he asked were not the maritime provinces, therefore, entitled to some consideration in the way of bonuses. But, Sir, he omitted to mention the fact that the Intercolonial Railway is a road built specially to accommodate the maritime provinces, and that all the other provinces pay their share of the debt. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, and the Intercolonial Railway are all Dominion works, and consequently each province has its share of their benefits as well as their debts. But what we complain of is that the policy of the government is in open violation of its platform in 1893. I am not opposing in the main the policy of assisting railways. What I claim to be the correct principle is to subsidize such lines as open up new sections of country not yet supplied by railways. There are portions of the country which have never had the benefit of railway facilities, and which do not offer sufficient inducements to capitalists to build. It is the duty of the government to come to the assistance of the people, who are entitled to these conveniences of civilization just as are the people in other sections of the country. But the general necessity for the granting of subsidies does not exist to the same extent to-day as it did some years ago. Money is to-day more plentiful, and our mining enterprises and pulp and other industries offer stronger inducements to capitalists to invest their money in the building of railways. Therefore, we ought to be much more careful in the granting of subsidies than we were twenty-five years ago. I think the time has come when it would be wise for us to grant assistance to railway enterprises on the plan adopted by our American neighbours, namely, by giving them loans which would be repayable some time in the future. But we certainly, in any case, should avoid giving indiscriminate subsidies all over the country, and confine them to the newer sections of country which, without such assistance, would remain undeveloped.

Another tiling to which I would draw attention is the amount of the subsidy. We propose to give $3,200 per mile as the lowest subsidy to railways, which do not cost over $15,000 a mile. But any one will understand how easy it is for a railway company to show that its line has cost over $15,000 a mile, and if the cost exceeds $15,000 per mile, then the company is entitled to ask for an additional subsidy of $3,200 per mile, making in all $6,400. What means does the government take to check the accounts furnished by the railway companies. The same remark applies to bridges. We propose to give a subsidy of 15 per cent on the cost of a bridge provided that bridge costs over a certain sum. But how does that system work? We h(id an application for that subsidy from the company which built the Sorel bridge on the South Shore. They gave a statement of the cost, $243,000. It appears, however, that some parties were satisfied that the bridge did not cost that amount, and we find in the Auditor General's Report various estimates. Mr. C. A. Keefer estimated the cost at $112,472. Mr. Sclireiber took Mr. Keefer's quantities and gave a different estimate altogether. Mr. McCarthy, the engineer of the company, made the cost $150,,084, and Mr. Ridout estimated it at $101,000. Yet upon the strength of the claim which was entered by the company, the government is expected to pay a subsidy of 15 per cent. What check have the government that would justify us in the belief that they' are not paying on more than the actual cost? We have no check that could be regarded as final and concluding. I would advise the government to devise means of checking the accounts of these companies, or otherwise we will be paying them larger subsidies than they are entitled to.


Mr. WADE.: The statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) with regard to this resolution is not correct. He stated that this gave a subsidy of $3,200 per mile to a railway costing $15,000 a mile, and that if it cost more than that it received an additional $3,200. That is not the resolution. The resolution states that a railway receiving $15,000 a mile shall receive a bonus of $3,200 a mile, but in any case no railway shall receive more than $6,400 a mile.
Mi-. SPROULE. Does not the resolution say that it shall not exceed $6,400 a mile ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I shall read the resolution, as I intended to do in the first place :
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to grant a subsidy of $3,200 per mile towards the construction of each of the undermentioned lines of railway (not exceeding in any case the number of miles hereinafter respectively stated), which shall not cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, and towards the construction of each of the said lines of railway not exceeding the mileage hereinafter stated, which shall cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, a further
subsidy beyond the sum of $3,200 per mile of fifty per centum on so much of the average cost of the mileage subsidized as shall be in excess of $15,000 per mile, such subsidy not exceeding in the whole the sum of $6,400 per mile.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will tlie bon. gentleman tell me wherein I am incorrect ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: The hon. gentleman is entirely incorrect. Suppose a road cost $16,000 per mile, the subsidy it receives will be $6,400 per mile, plus one-half the cost over $15,000 per mile or $500. Now, I certainly think it unkind for some of the hon. gentlemen from certain constituencies to find fault with the granting of these subsidies. It is very well to make general statements that we must be careful how these subsidies are being granted to see that they are given only to deserving roads. I take it for granted that the government have been careful to see to that. I know of no railway on this list that is not deserving, and I have not heard any lion, gentleman refer to. any particular item and say that such is not the case. I think it is ungenerous as well as unjust for hon. gentlemen whose constituencies have been served not merely with subventions to railways, but with large sums for the construction of canals and other important public works to come here and say : We have got all we want, and now we will close the door on further expenditure of this kind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 The hon. gentleman's own friends said that.


Fletcher Bath Wade: If the hon. gentleman will pardon me, he has taken the long way around to show what my friends stated. Before the Liberal party came into power, they laid down a platform on which they asked the confidence of the people. We are responsible for our platform, I for one do not care to listen to quotations from what some gentleman may have said which was reported in some newspaper and is not held to be the policy for the Liberal party to-day. Our policy is what it has been, and, I hope, what it will be in the future- that subsidies shall be given to deserving railways.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. gentleman ashamed of the policy proclaimed by his leaders in the past ? Does he repudiate the utterances of his friends ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I am neither ashamed of, nor do I repudiate anything that has been said by anybody for whom I am not responsible-I have nothing to do with that one way or the other. I hold with the) policy of the party as enunciated by the party and laid down by the party. I stand by the utterances of the leaders of my party in parliament. But I am not going to be held by the remarks of some newspaper published in the wilds of Ontario. I was struck by the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock).

Toronto, I find, is a generous city. They *have had nothing done for them from the general funds of the Dominion ; they have not been built up from the money of this country spent in the construction of railways and canals. But what struck me most forcibly was the parental care with which this hon. gentleman wished to take from the government all power and responsibility in these matters. He wanted a railway commission to take the matter out of the hands of the government and consider these questions, carefully, critically, dispassionately, and decide when a railway subsidy should be granted. X can understand why the hon. gentleman is anxious to get as much power out of the hands of the government as he can ; but he did not seem to be worried on that score when his own party was in power. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to believe that the government as it exists is in quite as good a position to decide when a railway should have a subsidy as any commission that might he formed for that purpose. Now, we hear of huckstering charters. In our province of Nova Scotia and in the maritime provinces generally, we have seen very little of that. I have heard a great deal of talk about it up here, but have seen very few instances of it. I do not think it is well' for us in this way or in any way to discourage the building of railways. I agree with what has frequently been said this session that the great question before us to-day, the question which involves the greatness of Canada more than any other, perhaps more than all others, is the question of transportation. This question we should not regard from a sectional standpoint, but we should work together to settle in the best interests of the country this greatest of all questions that we have to deal with.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: Since my entrance into parliament I have consistently opposed the bonusing of railways. I believe that the system is entirely vicious, and I hold, with the Globe, that the time has come when we should inaugurate a new system with regard to railways.


Samuel Hughes: The present Globe ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes, the present Globe. The people of Canada have contributed for the construction of railroads ?223,000,000, exclusive of anything we may vote this session. We have given 60,000,000 acres of land, and if you include the exemption from taxation of these lands, hon. gentlemen will understand what an enormous subsidy that means. If you take the lands at $3 an acre, you get $180,000,000 worth of land grants, or, in all, some $403,000,000. This is the sum that the people of Canada have contributed for the construction of railways-practically enough to Mr. WADE.
build all the railroads in Canada at the present time.
Instead of controlling these railroads, these railroads exercise a very important control over parliament. We have not got that control of rates that we should have. The whole transportation question, to my mind, has been bungled from the start. These remarks will apply equally to our canal system. I think, with the hon. member from Toronto (Mr. Brock) and with the others who have studied this question, that the time has come for the inauguration of a new policy with regard to railroads. I am not here to say that no railroad should be built, but I say that if the country is to go on as it has been going for the .last twenty years, paying for these railroads without owning them, and if we are to give large bonuses as we have been doing, these bonuses ought to be given under an entirely different system. We ought to make conditions, so that if at any time we desired to take these roads over, we can take them over, less the bonuses we have given. Then, we ought to exercise most careful supervision over the bonding of these railroads, over the capitalization that may be made upon them ; so that when the time comes, as come it will, when the railroads of this country must be nationalized, we will be able to nationalize them on a proper basis.
I listened with great regret to the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Finance when he declared that we have in this country the same policy carried out by both parties, Now, as a Liberal from childhood up, I wan t to dissent from that view. That is not wha t I learned from the Liberal party. I hold in my hand a pamphlet issued in 1896 by the Liberal party, entitled: 'Dominion of Canada -Principles, Policy and Platform of the Liberal Party.' I turn to page 53, and I find, in a discussion of the Patron platform, a paragraph which I will read. This is the campaign document which was placed before the people. I will read clause 11 of the Patron platform, and what the writer of the platform says of it:
Clause 11. Prohibition of the bonusing of railways by government grants, as contrary to the public interest.
The policy of bonusing railways by cash and land grants from the Dominion government has become a fruitful source of jobbery, speculation and corruption. Under its operation favourites of the government have been enriched. Appropriations have been made for the sole purpose of purchasing the support of constituencies, and vast sums of public money have been voted without regard to the public interest, while millions of acres of land that should have been held in trust by the government for the future homes of hardy and deserving settlers, have beeu handed over without consideration or justification, to charter hawkers, whose intervention actually retards the construction of the lines whose franchises they control, for the purpose of extorting money from the ultimate builders of the roads. The policy of granting these subsidies has repeatedly been condemned

in parliament by the Liberal party, and this resolution is in harmony with the attitude of the Liberal party upon this question. (See resolutions 3 and 6, Liberal platform.)


Fletcher Bath Wade: Who signs that?


Robert Lorne Richardson: This was issued by the Liberal organizer of Ontario in 1896, for distribution over the entire country. On the first page I read :
Copies of this pamphlet can be had by Liberal candidates from Alexander Smith, Secretary, Ontario Liberal Association, 34 Victoria street, Toronto.
Now, I do not read this for the purpose of giving any party in this House any comfort, for the policy which has been followed by the Conservative party in regard to bonus-ing railways has been an iniquitous policy, in my estimation, and I cannot denounce it too strongly. The claim I make is that the Liberal party was returned to power after having denounced that policy ; and I regretted to hear the Minister of Finance make the statement, that the policy of the two parties was now the same in this respect. I certainly did not learn that policy at the feet of the Liberal party. I want to say, also, that every word expressed in that resolution which I have just read I agren with. I agreed with it in 1890. and I agree with it to-day. I think that the history of railway subsidies since 1896 has been as vicious as it was prior to that date. The position I took then I take to-day ; and 1 would urge upon the government the desirability of inaugurating a new policy with regard to the bonusing of railroads and the control of railroads. 1 believe you will never have the transportation question in this country satisfactorily solved until the government controls at least one railroad extending from the Atlantic and reaching into the wheat fields of the North-west Territories.
Now. whatever may be said in favour of bonusing or assisting railroad construction, say, in the province of British Columbia, or even in the settled portions of the Northwest Territories, I think it is utterly indefensible that in this year of grace, 1901, this parliament should be called upon to vote vast subsidies for the purpose of building railroads in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and many portions of the province of Quebec. Why, these provinces have been settled two or three hundred years, and surely they ought to be able to stand upon their own feet in the matter of transportation, and this House ought not to be called upon to furnish subsidies to help build these railroads. Fancy a proposition being made in the United States Congress for subsidizing railroads ; why, it would be laughed out of court. Surely, we ought to learn some lessons in this country, and one thing we ought to learn is, that it is time, if we are going to contribute practically all the money, all the resources that we have been giving towards these railroads, that the parliament of Canada should exercise efficient control over them. I do not profess to be a prophet, but I say that within five years, so strongly will the opinion of the people of Canada be aroused upon this question,- that the government, be it Liberal or Conservative, will be forced to take up this question in a practical manner and to see that the money that the people are contributing for the building of these railroads is not wasted, and that if we build them, we should at least have them operated in the interest of the people who contribute the money.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I would not speak on this occasion were it not for the reference to the railway in my own county. I will ease the hon. gentleman's suspicion that there is any corruption in this, when I state that since 1867 the county of Guysborough has on only one occasion returned a Conservative to the House of Commons. So it cannot be for the purpose of purchasing votes in my county, for my county has always returned Liberals except on that one occasion. Neither can it be for the purpose of rewarding political supporters, because the company that are now going to build this railroad is composed of M. H. Fitzpatrick, the local Conservative member of the House of Assembly in Nova Scotia, one of the best men I know, and Mr. George McCormick, who sits in this House and is a gentleman who cannot be purchased by giving him a grant to a railway. This, at least, can stand on its merits. It was voted before, and voted without objection. The county is a very large one, is rich in natural resources, and I think that while we may be at some pains to examine these votes closely, as the hon. member for East Grey says, when a good case is made out, the proper position to take is, that the subsidy should be granted. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) who has just spoken has forgotten the fact of the immense sums the United States had to pay for the construction of railways. Take, for instance, the Union and Central Pacific.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes, but they got it all back.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: They have not got it back to this day. How about the land grants ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: They got the money back. They made the Union Pacific pay the money back.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: They ran the road into bankruptcy.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: One hundred millions has been paid back to the American government.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The granting of a subsidy to that road was necessary at the time.


Robert Lorne Richardson: We must impose conditions here also.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon, gentleman (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) forgets that in the United States matters are reversed from the position in which they are in this country. In the United States a great transcontinental railway will receive assistance, hut the United States government has nothing to do with railways in the several states. Each state is in an independent position, while our province has only a small subsidy out of which it cannot grant railway subsidies.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Will the hon.
gentleman say that any state in the union grants cash subsidies ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I am not saying so, but I am giving that reason to show why the central government has not voted large amounts of money. In the United States the country is so rich that the question there is as to who shall he allowed to build) the railways. Does the hon. gentleman say that the Canadian Pacific Railway would ever have been built without being paid something to assist it in opening up the richest country in the world, a part of country where ten acres of land is worth a farm of one liunderd acres in the lower provinces, and if you give a grant to the richest part of the country that you have in Manitoba are you going to deny it to a smaller province ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Where is all this going to lead to if we accept the dictum of the hon. Minister of Finance that because one section of the country has got it others have a right to claim it ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If a good case is made out. certainly, but the Dominion) has a mighty margin yet before it will get to the time when it has given to other roads the amount which has been voted to the Canadian Pacific Railway to build a road in the hon. gentleman's country.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I think it would have been better if it had been built in accordance with the policy laid down by Mr. Mackenzie.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: We will not discuss that now. The hon. gentleman and I may agree upon that, but that is not the question we are discussing now. We have to do with conditions as they exist now. and not go back to what would have been wise at another time more than to draw from joast experience a lesson as to what it is wise for us to do at the present. I have my own views, I am not sure but that in a well populated country the future may not call for the government ownership of railways. I regret that just now I do not see very much hope for the adoption of that principle in Canada-not for a number of years at least. The whole subsidy given to these roads is only one-fifth of what they could be built for. The subsidy is $3,200 a mile, and I venture to say that not less than $15,000 a Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
mile will build any of these roads. The hon. gentleman showed conclusively that $400,000 had been given by this country.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Including land grants.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I will accept the hon. gentleman's statement. If you are to get back the roads which have been built and for which subsidies have been granted, this country will have to provide at once cash to the amount of $2,000,000,000. Is not that a large sum ? Four hundred millions multiplied by five would make two thousand millions. Is this country ready to borrow $2,000,000,000 to take over the railways ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: All you have to do is to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) and buy the stock. He said you could control the Canadian Pacific for $5,000.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: He said you could control the stock for $2. I will not adopt that suggestion, because it is not correct. There is no man who will seriously look at the question of transportation to-day but must be struck with this fact, that if a country is thickly populated, the right thing may be for the country to own the railways ; but with an extent of country, such as we have from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and with the sparse population we have, I do not see how the country can undertake that just now. I have a very high respect for the judgment of my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson), but I cannot help saying that with the otium cum dignitate of the county of Lennox, with plenty of railways, with the St. Lawrence beside it, and with the $11,000,000 that the present government have spent to make the St. Lawrence better, it should be kind to poorer and less favoured people. It ought to be happy that other parts of the country should be as highly favoured as it has been. I have, in my county with 200 miles of seashore, only two miles of railway. I am pleased to think that these men are ready to put their capital with the subsidy to build that road. There are natural advantages in the county. There is wood, mineral, fish and there is quite a large part of it fairly good farming land. Well, now. is it not a good thing to do to encourage those who are opening up the country ? Do not suppose that I am for giving indiscriminately because there is the asking; but if a fair case is made out, I submit that for years to come we will have to consider it. I think the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) misunderstood me when he spoke about a railway commission. My idea of a commission is not at all to say whether a road is to be built 10 or 20 miles long, but to a commission to be appointed to solve the great and difficult question of transportation from one end of the country to the other. It is not that a commission should be appointed to be sent down to my part of the country, for instance, to say

whether 10 or 20 miles of road should be built.


William Rees Brock: I did uot say that they should decide as to whether 10 miles of railway should be built or not, but I said that they should determine whether the road is in the public interest.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: A gentleman from Toronto, for example, looks out and sees a great city, and he goes out ten miles and he sees a well-populated rich district. Then, he comes down to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, where there are ten miles of road to be built, and he says : It is shameful to have a road built here, while from the ground, out of the forests, and the fisheries wealth may be taken that he never dreamed of.


William Rees Brock: Let them pay for it and not the whole country.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That is to say that the man who has to dig for a wage in the mine should not be assisted at all. My idea of parliament is to give assistance to the weaker. This country, if it is ever going to become great, must assist the poorer people and not lavish bounties upon a few individuals


William Rees Brock: The hon. gentleman was speaking of great wealth in mines, timber and land. If the wealth is there let them pay for the railway.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I was speaking of the great wealth. I said there might be wealth there. Suppose there is a good iron mine 20 miles from railway communication ; you are not going to get capitalists to go in there and build a railway when elsewhere they have a road to as good an iron mine already built, and all they have to do is to pay the freight on their product. Has the man who has to dig in the mine to pay out of his own pocket for a railway, while at another place a railway is already built ? The hon. gentleman, I have no doubt, would stand up and say that a factory which had declared a dividend of 15 per cent should get further protection, but he will not say that the people who live without any advantages should be assisted by subventions. We are now having a recoil from the system that has prevailed in this country in the past. It was a system of assisting particular individuals. I am in favour of a system of bounties which will assist the larger number. For five or six years I have been trying to get this subvention for a railway in my county, but I have not been so successful as I had hoped I would be. Now, I say that we will be more successful, and if a good case is made out to assist those who need assistance, I care not in what part of the Dominion that place may be, I will vote for it.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: What is the total of the applications for subsidies filed with the government this year, and what proportion has been conceded ? The minister can give it in the rough.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not added up the whole amount, but I think somewhere in the neighbourhood of $18,000,000.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: And you are giving how much ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000. I do not think that very much is to be gained on either side of the House by quoting the utterances of individual members of parliament, no matter how prominent they may be. I apprehend that on a question of this kind you will always discover a very great difference of opinion amongst members within the ranks of both political organizations. I take it that the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) has by no means expressed the views of a large proportion, not to speak of the majority, of the political friends with which he is associated. It therefore would not be fairly stating the attitude of gentlemen opposite to quote the member for Lennox as having expressed their views. I conceive that there is quite a little feeling in the country of uncertainty as to the wisdom of our continuing to grant' year after year subsidies to railways as has been done in the past.


Samuel Hughes: Was not that feeling catered to by the Liberal party ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend may be correct or ihe may not. The chances are that, without the action of any political party, the people themselves would be inclined to think that it is well to be exceedingly cautious and prudent in respect to the granting of railway subsidies. The government in their submission to parliament on the present occasion have been influenced by the feeling that we should exercise the utmost care and satisfy ourselves that the particular railways we are aiding are meritorious undertakings, and are going to be of permanent advantage to the country. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) has made us a suggestion. He, coming from Toronto, does not appreciate the needs of sections of the country which have been without railway communication, and I venture to think- though I may be doing the hon. gentleman an injustice-that he has not considered the suggestion which he himself has made. He thinks that the origin of the difficulty is in the readiness with which charters are granted for railways, and he has gone so far as to conclude that we should put some restriction upon the granting of charters. He believes that a commission ought to be constituted by parliament ; a commission that would be composed of most exemplary, independent and capable men, and that they should be called upon to advise parliament

as to whether or not this, that or the other railway application should be entertained. If my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) had carried his consideration further, I think he would have seen that parliament would be very unlikely to have its judgment influenced upon a question of that importance by the opinions of any four or five of the most capable men that the country could produce. My hon. friend (Mr, Brock) shakes his head, but nevertheless I think he is wrong in the opinion he has expressed. I do not believe that parliament would be prepared to abrogate its functions and to refuse to exercise its own judgment upon a question of that kind. If parliament were to constitute a commission whose duty it would be to advise parliament as to whether or not a railway should be chartered in this direction or that, parliament would be more likely to be influenced by the members who would represent that or the adjacent districts than it would be by the conclusion of any such commission. My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) thinks he might not be influenced himself, but I believe he would be just as ready to be influenced by the opinions of members of parliament in whom he had confidence as by the opinion of any outside commission. I think I know my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman is exceedingly alarmed about the present condition of affairs. He says that the country is granting these subsidies as they had been granted for years past. My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) has denounced the expenditures which have been made in times past. He denounces the expenditure on the Trent canal, which he says is pure waste of money, and he intimates that is his view with regard to many railway subsidies which have been granted. My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) is in the position that he does not unshackle his mind until he gets into opposition. For^ years my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) was, as he is to-day, one of the most ardent, one of the most determined, one of the most-shall I say unreasoning, when it comes to his political opponents-one of the strongest adherents of the Conservative party. All his life he has loyally and faithfully. and no doubt conscientiously, supported all the measures of the Conservative government. He supported them in what he calls this outrageous expenditure on the Trent canal. It did not shake the hon. gentleman a hair. He was just as ceaseless a supporter of the Conservative party then as he is now when they are in opposition.


Samuel Hughes: Who says it was an outrageous expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am quoting the hon. gentleman from Toronto.


Samuel Hughes: And he has not apologized.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He ought. My hon. friend (Mr. Mr. BLAIR.
Brock), as the candidate of the party who committed these atrocities, went on the public platform and defended them to the utmost extent, or he would not be here. My hon. friend must realize tnat as a member of parliament he is in a different position from that which he has occupied all his life before. He needs a larger view of questions than he took before. And what he in his conscience thought all right, in that altered conscience-I am not going to say it is an improved conscience-he finds everything here wrong. If my hon. friend were to move that the question as to whether a charter should be granted and a railway subsidy given should be referred to a very intelligent commission, even of his own choice, I do not think that many of his political friends would support him. And why ? Because members of parliament who have had experience in these things know that you cannot pursue a particular line of policy which has benefited one section of the country without following it up for a reasonable time, so that all sections of the country may participate in the advantages. My hon. friend has not had practical experience enough


William Rees Brock: You mean log rolling.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend calls it log rolling. He calls it log rolling when it is done by this side of the House, but he would call it the highest standard of propriety of conduct if it were done by his political friends. It is a machine when we do it; it is a fine high-toned organization when they do it. I do not want to say anything offensive to my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) because I know he is a very respectable gentleman, and one who has secured the respect of the community in which he lives. Therefore I do not like to say what I might say even in parliamentary terms regarding him.


William Rees Brock: Thank you.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Coming to the question of the subsidies, the hon. gentleman from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) thinks we should adopt the course pursued in the United States. He does not say that we should stop granting subsidies at once. Reasonable gentleman, my hon. friend from Grey. He thinks we ought to confine the policy to meritorious undertakings. We are entirely with his opinion about that. Let us see whether we can agree further. The hon. gentleman says that we ought to give loans as they do in the United States. I do not know whether there is any uniform 'system of aiding railways in force in the United States. I know that in many states they do not give aid as a system. I know that the municipal bodies do, when they are interested in railways. I believe that the government of the United States has done so in the past in very notable instances, but I do not think it is doing so at present. But if you adopt the plan of

making loans to companies, you would require to tliink it out pretty well.
Suppose we say we would make a loan to assist the construction of a railway in a desirable section of the country, we would have to consider on what principle we would make that loan. Are we going to make that loan in such a way as to ensure the construction of this particular work? If we are, we have practically to loan them all the money the undertaking will cost. Or are you only going to loan them a part? If you are, and they have to borrow the balance elsewhere, you will have to take a second lien on the railway ; for if the government attempted to take a first mortgage for its loan, that would certainly prevent the company procuring a second loan on a second mortgage, because nobody would advance money under such circumstances. Ton would either have to arrange that, your loan would be for the whole amount, or if it were only for a portion, you would have to subordinate the government loan to the loan the company would make in the money market. Now, if you are going to take a second mortgage, under what conditions will you take it? How will you regulate the amount for which the first mortgage will be given? The first mortgage might be given for a very much larger sum than the company would need to borrow. If it were to toe limited to the amount required with the government subsidy to construct the road, you would have to limit it in some such way as to prevent the company making an excessive loan in priority to the government loan. You would have to have some machinery for that purpose, and that. I apprehend, Would not be an easy task. It is not an easy matter to devise a working scheme by which the loan business could be managed by the government. I have thought of the matter a good deal, and I would be prepared to secure on tiie undertaking every dollar the government might advance by way of subsidy ; but you must not kill the undertaking in endeavouring to get security for the government, because the object is to encourage and promote the construction of the particular work in question. You must devise your plan in such a way that, while it will secure the government, it will at the same time ensure the object you have in view in making the grant, namely, the successful carrying out of the undertaking. That, as I have said, is not a thing that can be very easily arranged. It is a thing which demands a good deal of consideration, and it might lead to a great deal of trouble in working it out. So that when my bon. friend suggests the idea of a loan, I want him to understand that the matter has not toy any means escaped the very serious consideration of the government, and it will continue to receive our consideration in the hope that we may be able to devise some plan for securing the return of the whole or the portion of these aids, to the public exchequer.
Now, my hon. friend has pointed out that it is by no means an easy matter to work out that portion of the policy of the government which provides that when the cost of the work does not exceed $15,000 a mile, the subsidy shall be limited to $3,200 a mile, and that the company constructing the line contracted for with the government shall be entitled to 50 per cent of the excess over $15,000 ; and he has said that in the working out of this plan it has been found a very easy thing for companies to secure the additional subsidy, notwithstanding the provisions we have made. I think my hon. friend has lost sight of the object and purpose we have in view in devising this method of adjusting the subsidies. The hon. member knows that in times past a great many subsidies were given in aid of railways for very much larger amounts than $3,200 per mile. Some subsidies were given up to the full extent of $12,000, some at $10,000, I think some at $8,000. At all events, they ran all the way from $3,200 up to $12,000 a mile.


John Graham Haggart: Where do you find that information? I only know of two roads that received a subsidy of over $3,200 a mile : that is the Canada Central, and the road to connect Toronto with the Canadian Pacific Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend has forgotten the subsidies which have been given. There are a number of roads which received much larger subsidies than $3,200.


John Graham Haggart: There were some subsidies telescoped, and there were certain roads in the North-west which were granted so much per year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What does telescoping mean?


John Graham Haggart: It is a plan by which the subsidy is doubled up on a particular section of a road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can give the hon. gentleman a list of the subsidies, and when he sees it, he will be surprised if he thinks at this moment that there were only two or three roads which were given more than $3,200 a mile. There was no apparent principle on which the aid was granted ; but we did feel that, in order that the railway companies that were receiving aid from us should know that they were toeing dealt with upon an equal and fair principle, we could accomplish that by some such sliding scale, according to cost, as we have provided here; and it has not been so easy a matter as the hon. member supposes for railway companies to obtain the additional subsidy. I brought down a statement last session showing the total number of railway companies which had received aid in excess of $3,200 per mile, under the operation of this sliding scale, and, if my memory serves me,

there were only three that secured the additional aid. I cannot recollect that any company since last session has been receiving more than .$3,200 per mile. There were only three, at the outside, when the statement was brought down last year, that received more.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was the Rainy River road.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That did not receive its subsidy under the sliding scale. I am speaking of those which were included in the sliding scale.


Uriah Wilson: In the return brought down last year there is nothing to show that any of the companies received more than $3,200 per mile, although some did.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was nothing in the resolution calling for such information.


Uriah Wilson: I understood the hon. minister to say that he brought down a return last year showing this.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know whether I brought a return or not; but I made the statement in parliament when the subsidies were under consideration. I had the information and gave it to parliament, and the hon. gentleman will find it In ' Hansard.'


Mr. CLANCY.: Is the hon. gentleman prepared to lay on the Table a map of each province where subsidies are now being granted, showing the probable cost of each line? The hon. gentleman does not expect the committee to assent to his resolution until he puts them in possession of that reasonable measure of information?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If my hon. friend waits until wo have maps of all the provinces, I am afraid his anticipation will not be realized of spending at home his holiday on the 24th of May. I do not think that the hon. gentleman has ever heard of any such detailed and voluminous information having been supplied in other years. I do not think my predecessor will say it is customary.


John Graham Haggart: Always, every time.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think that my hon. friend's memory is in fault. I could not promise to furnish the information asked for at this late period.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I do not think it is open for the hon. gentleman to excuse himself because of the late period at which he brings down these resolutions. He brings them very late, and then makes that unfortunate circumstance the ground for refusing any information to the committee. Let me point the hon. gentleman to the doctrine which one of his colleagues laid down Mr. BLAIR.
with regard to this matter. In 1S90, his hon. colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, said:
I say that no government which was true to the country would grant one of these railways a subsidy until there were first laid before the Minister of Railways and submitted to parliament, sufficiently fair and accurate plans of the country to be traversed to enable the minister and the House to form a reasonably accurate estimate of the total cost of the road.
No government true to the country would do otherwise. That was the opinion in 1890 of the gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister of Trade and Commerce. I suppose he has not changed his views, and therefore will not regard this government as true to the interests of the country. He laid down the further principle :
In the second place, evidence should be given to the minister, and should be transmitted by him to parliament, to show that the parties in connection with it had reasonable facilities and reasonable means to enable them to construct the line ; that they were not men of straw. The hon. gentleman comes down with this resolution, and has not said a word with regard to the prospect of carrying out any one of these projects. And then, Sir, the third proposition that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce laid down is particularly applicable to this case, and it was supported in even stronger language by the right hon. gentleman who now leads this House. It is as follows
Lastly, Sir, and, perhaps as important as any, it is a gross violation of all propriety and of all constitutional rule and precedence that these propositions to grant subsidies to railways should not be laid on the Table of this House several weeks before prorogation, in order that we may have time to examine them. We must go on with this policy in order that we may have time to ascertain which are reasonable and fair applications likely to benefit the country, and which, on the other hand, are likely to result in disaster and injury.
Then, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce went on with a remark which is perfectly applicable to the course which has been adopted by the Minister of Railways and Canals now :
In this present case, it is perfectly apparent that every one of these conditions were utterly disregarded.
The Minister of Railways and Canals has utterly disregarded every one of these wise suggestions of his colleague, in bringing down these resolutions. He has not furnished a plan or any evidence of the reasonableness of the enterprise, and he has brought the resolutions down a few days before prorogation. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce is not the only authority on this subject that I can quote. The right hon. gentleman who leads the government used almost violent language jn 1894 with regard to this matter. He said :
The session has lasted four months, and the government have had more time than. was ne-

cessary to prepare these resolutions. How is it possible that this House can discuss these resolutions intelligently, covering as they do about sixty different railway schemes, and involving an amount aggregating over three million dollars ? It is quite impossible under such circumstances that any man in this House can give intelligent attention to this question.
Well, the right lion, gentleman is leader of a government which, under circumstances of this kind, is bringing down between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000 of railway subsidies within a few days of prorogation. Did these lion, gentlemen believe what they were saying six years ago, or is there any reason that is applicable now that was not applicable in 1894 to a case of this kind ? The present Minister of Justice raised his voice in the same strain. He said :
We are here in the fifth month of the session *-the fifth month began this week-and we have for the first time brought under our attention a number of railway projects, the merits of which we have no opportunity to consider.
The House had as much opportunity to consider the resolutions in 1894 as the hon. gentleman affords us at the present time. Why is it, when these excellent principles were laid down so strongly by hon. gentlemen opposite, that we find the leader of the government, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and the present Minister of Railways and Canals pursuing that course which they condemned so vigorously six years ago ? The Minister of Trade and Commerce on that same occasion said-and I invite the hon. gentleman's attention to the language he used :
More than that, every human being knows that this practice of putting these railway resolutions off until the end of the session is carried out for the express purpose of stifling and preventing inquiry.
Is the hon. gentleman of that opinion still ? And, if so, how does he justify his taking part in a policy which brings these resolutions down within a few days of prorogation ? Is it for the purpose of stifling and preventing inquiry ? The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce owes it to the House to explain why he did not, as a member of the government, insist, as he argued in 1890 and 1894, that these resolutions would be brought down a reasonable time before prorogation, should be brought down at a time when the House can properly investigate them upon evidence presented for the purpose by the government. The present Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) used even stronger language, which I could read to the House if I cared to do so. A former member of the House, Mr. McMullen, used language which went far in the same direction, but, I will not weary the House by quoting it. How comes it that we have these resolutions brought down thus late in the session, and with no evidence which would enable the House properly to judge of the value of these propositions.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) surely does not contend that because I am not able to produce maps of the different provinces showing all the railways subsidies for which have been applied for, as well as the connecting railways, that, therefore, we have not full information with regard to all these roads ?


Mr. WALLACE.: Well, give it to us.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: How can the hon. gentleman reasonably ask that these plans for any particular line should be given when we are discussing another line altogether ? We have commenced at resolution No. 1, and we are still at resolution No. 1.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Well, give us the facts concerning No. 1. The hon. gentleman has not given us a particle of information.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The hon. gentleman has not given me an opportunity.


Robert Laird Borden: do not think it a very creditable way for the government to adopt.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at 3 p.m.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think the committee is entitled to some explanation on this first resolution. We .would like to know the particulars of this vote.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a revote. I do not think the hon. gentleman expects us to go over all the explanations that were made last year on these votes. This is identically the same railway that was subsidized the previous session, except that instead of starting from Sunnybrae, on the Intercolonial Railway, it starts from New Glasgow.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We have no map or no knowledge of the locality. The minister stated that this is a revote. That does not make any difference. In the first place, it is a different railway. He says it is, because it starts from one point on the Intercolonial Railway instead of from another point, and goes presumably to a different Diace.
THE MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. No, It goes to exactly the same place.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Last session these votes were pushed through without explanations, but because we could not get explanations last year there is no reason why we should not get them now. The minister is bound to give the information. I think he said he would lay the papers on the Table. Has he put any papers on the Table of the House that will give us information that would justify us in passing this vote? Last year we did not get the particulars and we want them now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is in error, he did get the information. Of course, wheu a gentleman asks for information and keeps on asking until he is told there is no further information, we can apprehend that it is not facts he wants but simply to make delay and trouble. Now, last year correspondence was brought*down in regard to this and the other votes, full explanations were given, we had the maps here, we went over them together at the Table, and all these votes were explained in a way so satisfactory that there was but one subsidy in the whole list of resolutions that was challenged on the other side. It is hardly fair for the hon. gentleman to make such a statement now.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The vote is exactly the same as last year, except that last year the railway leaves at a point on the Intercolonial Railway called Sunnybrae. It was to go for a small distance over the Intercolonial Railway. The company that are now


Robert Laird Borden: building it means to leave from New Glasgow, some miles to the east of where It was to leave before. They think it will be a better line, but it will go to the same place. The only change in the vote now is that in place of saying, At or near Sunnybrae, it is at or near New Glasgow. New Glasgow is quite a railway centre, the short line from Oxford goes there, then the road that goes to Pictou, and another road that goes to Pictou Landing-four roads converge there. It is the centre of the steel works operations. About seven-eighths of a mile from New Glasgow there is a colliery, and the idea is to go out by that colliery and run practically over the same country for about fifteen miles. It will then strike on exactly the same line as if it left Sunnybrae.


John Graham Haggart: Is it the same parties who are back of both schemes ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Yes, and they got their charter. I may say they are about the same parties. I mentioned Mr. Fitzpatrick. Two of the shareholders are in this House, Mr. McCormick and Mr. McLeod. They are at the back of it, they are to build twenty-five miles this year. It goes through a country in which there is a good deal of wood, after that, a fine farming country. Country Harbour is one of the best harbours on the coast. It also goes through a tract of iron which has been taken up by the Whitney Company.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Will the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) tell us whether this road and some others that are being built down in Nova Scotia, will not eventually be linked into a system that will be a rival to the Intercolonial Railway ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No, it will be a feeder. It will be from New Glasgow and strike the southern coast in the county of Guysborough at Country Harbour. On this 80 miles of road all the products of the country will be taken to New Glasgow to be shipped on the Intercolonial Railway ; it will be a feeder of the Intercolonial Railway.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Why not produce the map ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Because it was produced before.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I can say in reply to the Minister of Railways and Canals, that for myself I.do not desire to lengthen the proceedings for one minute. But I think we are entitled to have full explanations. The fact that the vote went through last year in a perfunctory sort of way is no reason why it should be permitted to go through this year in the same way. The minister says that the map and papers were placed on the Table last year ; then how much easier it would be to put them on the Table now. It is another parliament that was voting the money, I do not want to

make objections now, I want information. The member for Guysborougb has given us some information: he tells us it started from New Glasgow, which is a railway centre.
I know where that is. I have been down there. But some other members of this House are not familiar with the locality, and when we are voting away a quarter of a million dollars, surely the House is entitled to the information upon which that money is to be voted.
This vote is not to be less than a quarter of a million; but if the road costs $28,100 a mile, then the vote will amount to over half a million dollars. It is a very fair request and a very reasonable request, that the minister should put that map on the Table, so that we may know what kind of country will be opened up by this railway and all particulars regarding it before we pass this very large amount. These items will not go through without full explanations, and the minister will be consulting his own convenience if he would give us this information at once.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: I have been trying to get a folder of the Intercolonial Railway, so that I might see by the map where this railway goes, but although I can get the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway folders in the lobby of the House, I cannot get one of our own railway. The very least the Minister of Railways should do is to have a map of the province on the Table.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not state that we had a plan of this railway. What I said was that all the plans we had were laid on the Table of the House.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister said differently a few minutes ago.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: ' Hansard ' will show I did not. I think the hon. member is referring to what the member for Guysborougb said. All the maps and plans we had were put on the Table last year, and they were gone over by the hon. gentleman who then represented York, N.B. (Mr. Foster). I have not got the maps here now.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Where are they?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They may be in the office. I would not expect that, session after session, hon. members would ask me to lumber up the records with maps referring to railway bonuses which have already been adopted by the House.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But this is a new parliament.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is not a new vote.


John Graham Haggart: I never in my lifetime knew of a Minister of Railways bringing subsidy resolutions to the House without
putting upon the Table, either twenty-four hours before or at the time he moved the resolutions, not only the maps, but the whole correspondence in connection with these subsidies. We have a right to that information.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that the Minister of Railways can be serious in talking about what was done last session, when he knows that there are a great many new members in this parliament. What value is it to these gentlemen that the minister placed some plans on the Table of the House last year?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not customary in parliament to have papers prepared and brought down year after year, in connection with matters which have been disposed of already.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Why not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know, but it has not been the practice. There are very strong reasons why it would not be necessary. The papers that are brought here are not taken back to the office, and it would be a rather serious matter, in view of the volume of work the officials have to perform now, to ask the department to prepare copies of them again. These are revotes that have already been considered and dealt with by parliament, and the inference is that parliament would not require that that work should be done over again.


James Clancy: The minister knows perfectly well that subsidies are asked for these railways by piecemeal, and that session after session we are asked to subsidize an extension of the line so that the maps and all the information should be before us again. For my part I have no disposition to obstruct, but we certainly should know the particulars of these railways when we are asked to vote such large sums of money for them. If the minister had consulted his own convenience and the convenience of the House, he would have been armed with all the necessary information. Discussion at this stage of the session is entirely without any profit beyond the fact of endeavouring to get some information which would justify us in voting these subsidies. It may be that the change of location of this line is wholly unjustified, and we certainly should have some information to enable us to decide on its merits intelligently.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) stated that some of the money was spent in his county. I would like to ask if this money was voted last session ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is a revote of the money voted in 1897, and in 1899 again.


Jabel Robinson: How much of this money is not a revote ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The whole of it is a revote. I would say to the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Robinson), to the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), and. to the committee, that it is not unreasonable, when the Minister of Railways and Canals asks for a new subsidy, that all the details concerning it should be given. I think the House would expect it, but when a revote is simply asked for, of course the minister is not prepared to go into the same wealth of detail that he would go into if he were asking for an appropriation for the first time.


James Clancy: But, the location of this line is changed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The vote is simply to serve the same locality. The line is changed in its location a few miles one way or the other, but it is to serve the same locality.	*


John Graham Haggart: It is twenty miles.


Mr. ERASER.: No, it is not twenty miles.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Well, it is intended to serve the same locality. Under such circumstances the minister, I think, would naturally presume that parliament would be disposed, as it has been in the past, to sanction the revote unless there was some very good ground to the contrary. The same public reasons apply to these revotes as to the original votes unless there may be somebody that thinks there are good grounds to the contrary. I may remind the hon. member for West Elgin that this subject was discussed previously in former parliaments. It was thought advisable to make this appropriation for a railway to serve a section of the country which is absolutely denuded of railway accommodation. I do not know whether there is any railway at all in the county of Guysborough.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Just about two or three miles at Port Mulberry.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The company is a large one, and I do not know that of all the resolutions that have been proposed there is one which would serve a more useful purpose than this one. It was so considered at the time this vote was originally made. The company which was expected to build the road found itself unable to do so, and a new company has been organized. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) has explained the circumstances, and he has stated that a new company is prepared to go on with the work. Under such circumstances it seems to me that the committee has all the information necessary to enable it to come to a conclusion. This appropriation was last voted two years ago. My hon. friend (Mr. Fraser) has explained the change which has taken place in the location of the line, but the road is to serve the same locality.


Jabel Robinson: 


James Clancy: The right hon. gentleman knows that the province of Nova Scotia is asking us to aid some seven or eight lines. Some are revotes and some are new votes. I am not complaining of the votes, but I am complaining of the want of information that should be disclosed on a map, placed before the committee. I am not only considering this one case, but there are seven or eight cases from that single province. These votes may be meritorious, but we are not in a position to say whether they are or not, owing to the poverty of the information we have on the subject.


John Graham Haggart: Will the right hon. gentleman lay on the Table of the House the correspondence in reference to the new votes, anyway ? Perhaps it will be laid on the Table when the resolution is moved. We will have no opportunity then of looking at it. We ought to have the correspondence on the Table of the House now.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: There is no correspondence about this at all. When the new company was formed to build that road in Nova Scotia, it asked power from the legislature of Nova Scotia to build from New Glasgow instead of Sunnybrae, and application was made to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, before the revote was taken, to change the starting point of the line from New Glasgow in place of from Sunnybrae. The only correspondence is the application I made on behalf of the county and people interested in that road to change the point at which the line started.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the principle upon which these votes were to be granted a few years ago ? It seems to emphasize the necessity of the papers that are asked for by several hon. members on this side of the House being brought down. Part of this subsidy was voted in 1897, and the Subsidy Act says :
The subsidies hereinbefore mentioned as to be granted to companies named for that purpose shall, if granted by the Governor in Council, be granted to such companies respectively ; the other subsidies may be granted to such companies as are approved by the Governor in Council as having established to his satisfaction their ability to construct and complete the said railways respectively.
They must by some means or other establish to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council their ability to take up this undertaking and complete it, and if so, there must have been some correspondence either oral or by letter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is an authorization to the Governor in Council to enter into a subsidy contract, and before entering into a subsidy contract he must be satisfied of the ability of the company to construct the road.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, and when it applies for it as well. That was the principle

followed when the application for the subsidy was made. A few years ago we went much farther than we do now. At first it was held that every company must show its financial ability to complete the undertaking.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not when the subsidy was granted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, my knowledge antedates that of the hon. minister on this question. That view was afterwards relaxed, and it was provided that when a company was formed and showed its ability to complete the road it should receive the bonus and not until then. But, the other was the principle that formerly obtained and it was held that when it applied for a subsidy it must satisfy the Governor in Council of its ability to complete the road. There must be some correspondence before the government at that time. We are told that this company is ready to go on now. If this company has been newly organized and is a responsible company and is ready to go on to complete the road, surely there must be some correspondence.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Nothing except the application to change the point of starting from New Glasgow instead of Sunny brae.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. gentleman to represent to the government that the company is prepared to go on and build the road.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I did, and I represented also, to show the bona fides of the company, that the local legislature of Nova Scotia, when giving it power had insisted that it should pay $100,000 to secure the completion of the road.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That makes it all the stronger. It takes it out of the category of the second part, which allows the Governor in Council to arrange that if at some future time a company show its bona fides it shall have the subsidy, but this company is now prepared to go on and that makes it all the stronger because all the information should be in the possession of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I did not think that it was necessary to write all the facts to the minister. I went on behalf of the county and of this company, and explained the matter as I have done now, and the minister accepted the explanation. The minister had the further privilege of seeing Mi-. Fitzpatrick, who is the chief man in the undertaking in Nova Scotia, who told him that he was ready to go on. I think that is all the information that was required. On behalf of the county I brought to the hon. minister a man whose name in Nova Scotia is the synonym, not only of the ability, but of character. I communicated the facts to the hon. minister and asked simpiy that 173
this change should be made in the starting point and nothing else. That was all that was required to be done to get a revote of the subsidy which parliament passed before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You ask an additional vote of $256,000.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Not a cent except what we got before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What you got in 1897 had lapsed.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Of course, we would not need to vote it unless it had lapsed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The conditions were that the railway must be begun within two years, and it was not begun.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is only a portion of this vote which has actally lapsed; but the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) is astray in this particular. He will see, on reference to this clause, that this is for a line of railway from such a point to such a point. It is not voted to any particular company, but is for the line of railway, and it is open to the Governor in Council to require all the evidence which can reasonably be asked from the company proposing to build, as to its ability to carry the work on. That we intend doing. As my hon. friend from Guysborough has said, I had a call from Mr. Fitzpatrick, who Is a man of high reputation and of means, and has had a great deal of railway experience, and he assured me that before he got his contract he would be able to satisfy me, so that I could satisfy my colleagues, that the work would go on, and that he and the gentlemen associated with him would be fully able to put it through. But we have not required yet that that evidence shall he furnished to us.


Jabel Robinson: Since I heard the remarks by the right hon. First Minister, I have not so much objection to this subsidy as I had, because if this is a revote from the last parliament, I think we are in honour bound to carry it out.


William Humphrey Bennett: They may have made a mistake.


Jabel Robinson: If they made a mistake, it was their mistake and not ours; and I think that unless some reason to the contrary can be given, we ought to carry it out. I was thinking, when the hon. member for Guysborough was speaking, that it took Sam Slick a long time to get those Bluenoses warmed up; and when they have only built two miles of railway in the large county he represents, I think it is about time somebody warmed them into a railroad. I do not think it right that the whole country should pay for their railroad, unless they have contributed to other railroads in other sections, as the Finance Minister says they have. I do not wish to talk parish politics, because that has been the talk half



the time in this House, aud I think it is about time we talked of something of more consequence. Not that parish politics is to be despised; but if we are to tell every little incident that has happened in railroad matters in the last fifty years, we may as well go home and tell what we did in our own counties. The people in my county some years ago built a railroad some twenty-three miles in length; they built it themselves. There was no government granting bonuses in those days. When the Canada Southern, which runs through the peninsula from the Detroit river to the Niagara river, was built, the people living in the country through which it ran built it themselves. The county of Elgin gave $225,000, and the townships also gave aid. Now, I am going to move a resolution. Will it be in order, Mr. Chairman ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Yes, it will be in order.


Jabel Robinson: It is as follows:
It is in the opinion of this House that the strictest economy should be exercised throughout all the public service, that subsidies should not be granted to individuals or to enterprises of any kind, unless it can be clearly shown that the whole country will be benefited thereby, and that all subsidies should be brought down during the first week of every session.
I think it is too late to discuss these questions now. I think the people of the country ought to have known that these subsidies were coming up, so that they might have discussed them fully. If the government would carry out, now that they are in power, the same policy they advocated when in opposition, they would not have all these men on this side of the House barking at them and throwing stones at them. This shows how careful we on this side of the House should be as to what we say, because all these things will be brought against us when we get into power. I trust that this government will carry out the policy they advocated, not only in regard to subsidies, but in regard to economy and everything else. If they do, the country will thank them.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Bring your motion up.


Jabel Robinson: Will you second It ?


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Yes, I will second it.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Before these resolutions are passed through the committee, I wish to refer to the conditions that go with these subsidies. Before doing so, however, I wish to say that I am totally opposed to the continuance of this policy of subsidizing railroads. Of course, the majority of this House are of the opposite opinion, but in that respect I do not think they are in accord with the feeling of the country. I think the country is ripe for a new policy on the railway question, and I submit that one way to favour a new policy is to do everything we can to demolish the old


Jabel Robinson: system. I am not at all impressed with the force of the argument that we should continue this policy of subsidizing railways, because it has been followed in the past, and we should carry it on until all the outlying districts of the country have been served with railway communication. If that were so, there would be no end to the policy at all. And yet I do not see that that is being carried out, for I notice that in the resolutions the western part of this Dominion is only getting thirty-five miles of railway- the Gimli extension near Lake Winnipeg. It is rather remarkable that this is the same thirty-five miles of railway that was the cause of a new-born zeal in the Railway Committee when the Canadian Pacific Railway asked for a charter for the Toulon line extension. It was then moved in the Railway Committee that that charter should not become operative until the Canadian Pacific Railway had constructed an extension to Gimli. Now, we find that the Canadian Pacific Railway has a further inducement to build that extension by an offer of $112,000.
But the matter I specially wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to is the wage clause. So as not to go into a lot of explanation, I will just quote one paragraph from the speech of the Postmaster General as reported in ' Hansard.' The last act of the last parliament was to pass the current wage resolution, on the 17th July last, the day before prorogation, providing that the fair-wage clause be inserted in all contracts and on works subsidized by the government. The Postmaster General then spoke as follows :
When it receives the sanction of parliament, it is a mandate and authority to the government to incorporate such a condition in government contracts; and, if this House sanctions the resolution, the principle of it will he lived up to by the government. My hon. friend opposite asks why this provision is not Incorporated in the Act respecting subsidies to railways. If they had been as attentive to find out what is in that Act as to assert what is not in it, they would have found that there is a provision to the effect of the granting of these subsidies shall be upon such conditions as may be set forth in the agreement between the government and the railways respecting such subsidies. If this resolution receives the sanction of the House, it will be the duty of the government and the Minister of Railways, representing the government, to incorporate the provisions of this resolution in the agreements relating to railway subsidies, and it will become one of the conditions regulating the right of railways to receive subsidies. This resolution expressly states that the fair wages principle shall apply to all works aided by subsidies of public money. If hon. gentlemen opposite desire this condition to be incorporated in these subsidies, let this resolution receive their approval, and it will become the duty of the government to live up to it in their dealings with the railways.
That resolution did receive the approval of the House, and yet I understand it is not being incorporated in the conditions of these

railway subsidies. I submit that the Minister of Railways should either assure us that the clause will be inserted in these subsidy grants or that he will himself move to revoke the action parliament took last year. I supported this resolution in good faith because I believed the government would make it operative, and I Intend to bring this matter before every parliament until that resolution is either revoked or carried out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: All the contracts which have been entered into for subsidies since last session contain a clause incorporating the fair-wage provision.


Arthur W. Puttee: I am very pleased to hear that, because we were told differently some time before the session.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. The hon. gentleman has reference to the contract for locomotives, in which that clause was not inserted, but I understand that it is embodied in the contracts now entered into.
Mr.	PUTTEE.	Have any works	been
proceeded with under the subsidies granted since that date.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	ANDCANALS. Yes, several railways are under construction,	and	the contract	with
those companies contain that clause.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the government have scarcely done, in connection with the vote, all that they should. The policy agreed on in voting these subsidies was that when the government knew that a company was able and prepared to build the road, the subsidy would be voted direct to it. The hon. member for Guysbor-ough has said that there is a live company in operation, which has made a deposit with the local government of $100,000, as evidence of its ability and intention to build the road. If that be the case, it was the duty of the government to vote the subsidy direct to that company, and the government should bring down the correspondence and all the evidence that satisfied it as to the ability and bona fides of the company. The reason why the policy was agreed on that where a company showed its ability and good faith the subsidy should be voted to that company direct, was to prevent the government playing off one company against another and making such bargain as would be satisfactory to them, either with friend or foe. That was the reason advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite for voting a subsidy direct to the company. If that was a good argument then, it is equally good to-day.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: What this company has to do is to deposit the $100,000, and both governments must be satisfied that the money is deposited to their credit before they will make the contract. The government is perfectly safe, because the bona fides of the 1731
company must be established before the contract is let. There is no other company that can build this road except this company. It is the only existing corporation that is ready to build it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the subsidy ought to be voted directly to that corporation.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: They only got their charter this winter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The subsidy was voted, in the first instance, in the manner it was, because there was no company then prepared to build the road. The minister now says that the company are only building a portion


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said that the whole subsidy had not lapsed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It has all lapsed except what was voted for the last fifteen miles.
The MiNISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, what was voted in the Railway Act of 1897 must have lapsed, because the subsidy provided that the road should be begun within two years. That was for 65 miles.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Have you the Act of 1899 there ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All it says is for a railway not exceeding fifteen miles. That meant fifteen miles in addition to the sixty-five miles. It did not revote the other subsidy, but granted a subsidy for fifteen miles further. All that subsidy has, therefore, lapsed except the fifteen miles, so we are granting the whole subsidy over again, and we are told that there is a company quite prepared and willing to build the road. It ought then to be voted direct to that company, provided the government bring down correspondence and evidence to satisfy us of the ability of the company to carry out the undertaking.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On that point, I think my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) would reconsider his -view as to voting a bonus to a particular company. My own view is that, except where you know that a company is bona fide established in some way


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) says that this company is.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He says that it is a very reputable company. But it has not built any railways.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not necessary.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that where a company has received a subsidy and is actually engaged in building a I railway, it is well to continue any grant to I that company. But where that is not the case the purpose may best be served by

granting the subsidy, not to the company, but to the line of railway. The reason is that, if one company fails to carry out the project, you are free to make an arrangement with another without coming back to parliament-and no good purpose is served by coming back to parliament. A number of years ago, when the railway subsidies were first introduced, a subsidy was voted to a particular company for the building of a railway in Nova Scotia. I remember speaking to Sir Charles Tapper about it, and suggesting that it would be better to vote that subsidy to the road, thus leaving him free to give it to any company. As I say, that was the first year of the railway subsidies, and the government had not thought the matter out. The company to whom the subsidy was granted was never able to build the road, but the fact that the subsidy was thus voted created difficulties which for many years were experienced in that part of the country. If it is well to build a railway, under ordinary circumstances, it is best to vote the subsidy for the railway and leave the minister to find a company to build it. As to this road, I think there is not much exception to be taken to it. A few miles this side of New Glasgow, as you come toward Halifax, there is a little branch railway that runs to a place called Sunnybrae. When the people undertook to build the railway now under discussion, they thought it would be well to start from the terminus of the branch at Sunnybrae. But the project was not carried out, and now, the new-comers say that they do not want to run over a branch railway and deal with another company, but rather to run direct to the Intercolonial Railway from New Glasgow. You start from a different point, and a few miles out you reach the common line. Mr. Fitzpatrick, the gentleman who proposes to build this line, is a gentleman of the highest respectability, and I have no reason to doubt that he is well able to carry out what he says. I once heard of a man who was said to be a worthy man, though an Episcopalian. Mr. Fitzpatrick is a worthy man, though a Conservative member of the Nova Scotia legislature. He is a contractor who is believed to have large means, and I would have implicit faith in anything he might say. He told me that he believed that if a subsidy was arranged for, the company could be found to build the road. I do not know whether the Minister of Railways and Canals has had any correspondence with him, but I am sure that if he had a cartload of correspondence he could not add anything material to what has been placed before this House.


John Graham Haggart: Are we to have the correspondence for the new votes ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have the original papers here.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The statement was made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals Mr. FIELDING.
that when the vote was up before, full information was given, and that it would be work of supererogation to go over the ground a second time. Now, I have taken the trouble to find out what was done when this vote was taken. The first intimation we had of It came in the form of a -question, as follows :


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER (for Mr. Borden, Halifax) asked :: Has the government given any promise or other assurance of a subsidy in aid of the construction of a railway from Sunnybrae, in the county of Pictou, to any and what place in the county of Halifax, or in the county of Guys-borough, in Nova Scotia ?
To which the Minister of Railways and Canals replied as follows :


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. Mr. Blair).: No action has been taken by government on the application for subsidy in aid of the construction of a railway from Sunnybrae, in the county of Pictou, to any place in the county of Halifax, or in the county of Guysborough.
The next reference to it was after midnight on June 28th-or rather June 29th. This was the last day of the session, except that the House sat on June 29th, which was the day of prorogation, for one hour, from eleven to twelve o'clock, noon. When this matter was brought up it was after one o'clock in the morning, as was shown by the fact that shortly before Mr. Foster had said :
* It is now one o'clock, and I suppose we are not going to be kept here any longer.' There was a wordy warfare whether the House should continue sitting, as all the members were tired out, and it was thought that the House should adjourn. The Minister of Railways proposed an item :
For a railway from Sunnybrae to Country Harbour and thence to Guysborough, in the province of Nova Scotia, a distance of sixty-five miles.
The whole explanation given by the Minister of Railways is contained in six lines of ' Hansard,' as follows :


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We propose to make a slight alteration. I move to strike out the words ' and thence,' which are in the first line, and insert the words, * from a point at or near the Country Harbour cross-road.'
The Minister has told the House that he had plans and correspondence on the Table at that time, that all the papers were before the House and that there was ample time for consideration. This was the last day of the session, even the very last hour, for, in the hour from eleven to twelve on the day of prorogation, very little business could be done, as hon. members could easily understand. But, in answer to a question from Mr. Foster, * What will be the total length ? ' the hon. member for Guysborough said :
The road will be a few miles longer than sixty-five.
5513	MAY 18, 1901	5514
This road is eighty-four

A survey has been made from Sunnybrae to Country Harbour. A subsidy was granted from the Intercolonial Railway to Sunnybrae by the late government, and also for five miles now to be built. A company has offered to build this road to Country Harbour, which is a very important harbour on the southern shore of Nova Scotia, with a branch from Country Harbour cross-road to Guysborough.
Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
That is the whole debate ; there is all the information given to the House when this question first came up. And I say that is not the full and ample information that we want and that we are entitled to receive. To say that this is a, revote and that ample information was given before is not in accordance with our own records ; and I think we can fairly ask the minister, without laying ourselves open to the taunt of obstruction, to give us full information, to place the map on the Table for the benefit of those who have no personal knowledge of the district, so that we may understand what we are voting.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I explained the idea, but hon. gentlemen opposite were quite ready to vote the subsidy. I have the map here and shall be glad to give all the facts to the hon. gentlemen.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I shall be glad to see the map. That is one of the things we have been waiting for.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: At the time the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) speaks of, the hon. gentlemen on his side were quite satisfied with the bona fides of the company, and were glad to vote the subsidy, because I asked for it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I shall be glad to look at the map. We are within our duty as members of parliament in asking for this information, and we are going to have it.


Samuel Hughes: It is painful to observe the position that our hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and even our good friend the First Minister, occupy here this afternoon, after the speeches they made in this House in years gone by against the best interests of this country, and which have been quoted to them to-day. I must say, and I say it after deliberation, that they did not pursue a policy that was in the best interests of Canada. Notwithstanding the speeches that were made in past years on the left of the Speaker by the McMullens and men of that stripe, decrying the policy that was laid down by the late Sir John A. Macdonald for the upbuilding of this country, I say that if this country is prosperous to-day it is due to the fact that the Liberal-Conservative party, both when in power and in opposition, have pursued and endorsed the policy that is now being pursued by the present government in bonus-ing railways. I trust that as long as the
Liberal-Conservative party is in power we will never be burdened by men of the McMullen stripe, who will get up in this House and deliver speeches directly contrary to their former policy, such as was delivered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few minutes ago. The policy followed by the Liberal-Conservative party with respect to the bonusing of railways was this : That bonuses for railways built for the purpose of opening up new districts in a province, opening up territories within the jurisdiction of a province, should come from the provinces ; but, that bonuses for railways opening up territories and districts under the jurisdiction of the Dominion should come from the Dominion. Later on they changed that policy of bonusing only through lines and great lines of trade, to bonusing to a large extent local lines. I do not think that any hon. gentleman on the Liberal-Conservative side is authorized to stand up in this House and oppose the bonusing of railways. No man authorized to speak for this party has yet declared formally against the policy of bonusing railways in every part of the Dominion of Canada for the purpose of opening up the country. So far as I am concerned, I shall not follow the lead of any man who lays down such a policy as that. Now, what are the facts in regard to the granting of bonuses ? It is true that when our party was in power we pursued the same shilly-shallying policy that the Minister of Railways and Canals Is pursuing now, bringing down these votes without having sufficient information to place on the Table of the House. The railway subsidies were always left till the last days of the session. Our friends in opposition condemned that, and pledged themselves that if they attained to power, in case they should not abolish entirely the bonusing of railways, they would at least pursue a different policy. They have failed to do so, and, therefore, are censurable for failing to carry out their pledges. We have heard a good deal about the benefits of the Parry Sound branch of the Canada Atlantic Railway. The men who built up that road are largely the same men who are applying for the grant that is now under discussion, men who have been successful railway contractors, and who, at the present time, are at work on a large contract in Nova Scotia. I can see no objection to this bonus, nor to any other bonus that I find on the list; and unless some facts are disclosed other than those now before us, I shall support every bonus that is proposed here to-day.


James Clancy: I desire to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals if he is in possession of any information as to whether any portion of this railway, including such bridges as are provided for, is likely to exceed a cost of $15,000 per mile ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have been over the section of

country several times, and it is not a difficult line of railway to construct. 1 do not know any reason why it should cost over $15,000 per mile. There will be a couple of bridges, but they will not be expensive bridges. We could scarcely expect to have any plan or survey of the road before the company has got fairly on its feet. Still, my impression is that $15,000 per mile would more than cover the cost of this railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. member for Victoria, I must say, for myself, as a member of the Conservative party, that I am not in favour of the wholesale bonusing of railways, as we have been doing year after year. I believe the sentiment of the country is against it. While saying that, I admit there are exceptional instances where It is justifiable. Where a railway is going into a new country, and which would not be likely to be built unless a substantial bonus was given-in that case it may be justifiable to subsidize a railway. Why should we not take a lesson from what is being done in the United States for several years past, where they loan money for building railways ? The Minister of Railways and Canals says it is difficult to get proper security. But, what they have done we can do. It is only a few years ago since the Union Pacific Railway was obliged to pay back $25,000,000 of money loaned to build that road. I can go into the library and find a dozen other similar cases. If they are able to get security, why not we ? They are building railways through a country similar to ours. Therefore, I say the time has passed when we should be constantly giving subsidies to railways, the consequence of which is usually to make millionaires or wealthy corporations, rather than doing good to the locality. It has become the practice of railway corporators to lay out their plans to make a raid on parliament year after year to get as many of these railway subsidies as they can. Before we adjourned at one o'clock, the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) attacked some remarks I had made when I drew attention to the fact that the Reform party, if they were honest, ought to drop this policy of railway subsidies. When I referred to the fact that a leading member of the Reform party had written a letter against it, the hon. member for Annapolis replied: We are not to be bound by the ipse dixit of every man who belonged to the Reform party. The Minister of Trade and Commerce wrote an important letter, which appeared in the Farmers' Sun, in order to influence that large class of people known as the Patrons, at that time. I have that letter before me, it is headed ' Like unto like must be alike.' This is the heading that, I presume, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce put upon it. What does he say ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Read it all.


Andrew George Blair: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will not read it all, because I do not wish to retard the debate. He says :
I know, no man better, how utterly fatal any protective system must be.
He then goes on to speak of that. He afterwards says :
Our policy and platform are exactly the same as yours.
Further he says :
What are the other planks of the Patron platform affecting Dominion politics ? They are these: 1. Economy of administration. 2. Purity and independence of parliament. 3. Tariff for revenue only. 4. Reciprocal trade. 5. Protection of labour from monopolies. 6. No railway bonuses.
And so on. He says further :
You see, as I have said, that the objects of both organizations are absolutely identical. The Liberal party for fifteen years and more have been fighting at heavy odds for the very objects the Patrons profess to desire. The Liberal party lost office rather than forsake these principles.
So he goes on all through that letter saying that the Liberal platform is exactly the same as that of the Patrons, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) says that we are not to have regard to what is said by a prominent member of the Reform party.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) only wants to ask me a question, I have no objection, but I should prefer to go on and finish what I have to say.


Fletcher Bath Wade: If the hon. gentleman does not want me to interrupt him, I will wait until he is finished.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I was going to say is that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) reminded this committee that the Reform party laid down its platform in 1893 and that it was bound by that platform, but this letter was written on October 24, 1894, as an addenda to the platform laid down in 1893 and written by the oldest member of the Reform party in Ontario, a man who was the leader of the Reform party in Ontario, the mouthpiece of the party, and whose utterances are entitled to be regarded as the utterances of the party. On the eve of the general election this letter was written for the purposes of the election by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, declaring that his party was in harmony with the Patrons in regard to subsidies to railways, but, he sits in this House today and has not a word to say against railway subsidies. He swallows his words and his friends say that we are not to pay any attention to his utterances because they are the utterances of an insignificant member of the party.


Fletcher Bath Wade: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) if he has not, himself*

during tlie present session, promoted a railway subsidy and urged the granting of it on the government ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Which ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: A railway subsidy.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: State your case.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) if he has not, himself, during the present session, urged the granting of a railway subsidy upon the government ?
Mr. SPROuLE. 1 do not know what the hon. member (Mr. Wade) is referring to.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I am asking the hon. gentleman a simple question. Has he not endeavoured to have a railway subsidy granted to a railway by the government ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will answer the hon. gentleman if he sits down, and I will say what I have already said. I< regarded the railway that was applying to the government for a subsidy as an exceptional one. and I urged the granting of a subsidy. I have said more than twice here to-day that I am not opposed to all of these subsidies, I [DOT]am not saying that I am opposing all of these subsidies ; I am only drawing attention to the inconsistency of a party in their wholesale defence of subsidies now, whereas a few years ago they condemned the granting of subsidies.	.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has placed words in my mouth that I never uttered. I would be pleased if he would retract them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What words ?


Samuel Hughes: That I was supporting wholesale subsidies to railways.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say that.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, X understood the hon. member to say that I had said that I did not regard any member of a party as speaking for him when he opposed railway subsidies, because I was in favour of them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In favour of the principle.


Samuel Hughes: I understood the hon. gentleman to refer to all those subsidies that are on the list. They are not wholesale subsidies, even if he likes to call them so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am willing to accept that; X have nothing to retract.


Samuel Hughes: I just rose to give the hon. gentleman an opportunity of putting himself on record. I stand here to support the principle, and to support any party that supports the principle of judicious bonusing of railways and canals and to oppose any party that opposes the principle of bonuses to railways and also canals. I want to say that I think that a good deal
of the attack that has been made is very proper owing to the outrageous conduct in the past of hon. gentlemen occupying positions on the Treasury benches. I think this line of attack is justified, and, so far as I am concerned, there will be no possibility in the future of the Liberal-Conservative party being put in the same box by our opponents being able to quote speeches we have made against the best interests of the country to the same extent as has been done with this statement of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce here to-day. What is the principle at the root of the bonusing of railways and why are these selections made ? Is any hon. member of this House able to stand up in his place and point out an instance where a bonus was given to a road that was not in the interest of the country ? There have been bonuses granted which were never carried out, but if the railways for which these bonuses were granted had been constructed the country would have been the gainer. The district which I have the honour to represent Aas not received any Dominion government bonuses, but the people of that locality have taxed themselves in enormous sums for the building of railways. The people of that locality have burdened themselves by this tax without getting competition between railways, because the roads that they bonused were amalgamated with other railways and they lost the competition. I maintain that these people living in a locality where no federal government railway subsidies were given at all, are entitled to the consideration of the people of this country, possibly not in a way of repaying the bonuses, but at all events, in some way. A railroad in a district benefits the nation as much as the company that constructs it. There is a great deal of opposition to these bonuses because half a dozen railway men have succeeded where hundreds have failed. We have hundreds of men up and down the country who have lost their property, their wealth and the wealth of others, who have undertaken railway construction. Some half dozen men have been able to succeed and are in a position possibly to carry out the enterprises with which they have become associated, but there are hundreds who are unsuccessful. The mere fact that these men have succeeded and that others have failed by hundreds is no reason why the principle of bonusing should not be continued. I maintain that the country gets value even if none of these safeguards were required. The country gets full value in the opening up of new territories, in securing competition, and in various other ways for all the money it gives, just as well as the company does. The principle of bonusing judicious schemes-and whoever heard of a wildcat scheme being bonused, certainly not I, and I have been in the House for ten years-the principle of bonusing judicious railway schemes is a good one for the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite opposed it in

the past, but I am sure they are heartily ashamed of their past conduct now. If when their speeches were quoted against them to-day these gentlemen could be photographed, their faces would resemble the patent medicine advertisement ' before taking ' and ' after taking.' I trust no policy will be laid down by any party in this House against the judicious bonusing of railways for the opening up of the country.


Mr. INGRAM.: We are now in the closing days of the session, and gentlemen on this side of the House have fairly stated their position and shown up the inconsistency of the government in their policy on this matter. Gentlemen on this side find fault because plans and correspondence have not been brought down. I understand that we are dealing with the first resolution here, and if the member for Guysborough is correct in the information he gave, I see no reason why this resolution should not pass, and pass now. He tells us that the minister has no correspondence in connection with this matter, and if that be true the minister cannot lay any correspondence on the Table. We have been shown a map, and if that map is correct, then I think that the electoral district of Guysborough is entitled to this railway. I, for one, will support this resolution, on the understanding given by the hon. gentleman from Guysborough. Now, at this late state of the session, after the case has been once stated, and stated plainly, surely it is not necessary to repeat these statements oyer and over again. I cannot see that it will do any particular good, and I think we have already wasted sufficient time without wasting any more.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) has moved a resolution which, not being relevant to the resolution under discussion, is out of order. I find on page 552 of Bourinot :
It is irregular to discuss any motion in committee which is not relevant to the resolution under consideration. It is also out of order to move the adoption of a general resolution with respect to any particular vote.
1,	therefore, rule this resolution of the hon. member (Mr. Robinson) out of order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this resolution No. 1.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
2.	To the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near ChaudiSre Junction on the Grand Trunk Railway, Quebec, towards the present terminus of the St. Francis branch of the Temis-couata Railway, New Brunswick, not exceeding forty-five miles, and for a line of railway from the mouth of the St. Francis river, New Brunswick, westerly towards ChaudiSre Junction, not exceeding fifteen miles, in lieu of the subsidy granted by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, p^yagraph 23; also for a line of railway in extension of the
St. Francis branch of the Temiscouata Railway to the mouth of the St. Francis river. New Brunswick, in lieu of the subsidy granted by 1899, chap. 7, sec. 2, paragraph 43, not exceeding three miles; in all not exceeding sixty-three miles, $201,600.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This resolution amends in one particular the Act passed last session with respect to this railway. This is a railway which is projected for the purpose of connecting with some point on the Intercolonial Railway, either Chaudiere or St. Charles Junction, and running back in the rear portion of the country, which borders on the American line, giving railway connection to the people of that district who are now excluded from railway advantages by reason of their distance from the road along the St. Lawrence and the high ground which intervenes. We now ask that the junction which was fixed at St. Charles Junction may be varied to the Chaudi6re Junction. The second clause provides for the revival of the subsidy for three miles of railway which was granted in 1899, for the purpose of connecting that line with what may be called a branch of the Temiscouata Railway, at the mouth of the St. Francis river. Three miles intervene there which require to have a railway, and a subsidy was granted two years ago for that purpose. It has not been constructed, but we are assured by the hon. minister who represents that county that the line will be built if the subsidy be renewed, and we are asking parliament to revive the subsidy for these three miles.


John Graham Haggart: I did not understand the hon. minister about the connection.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: An extension of the St. Francis branch of the Temiscouata Railway, three miles to the mouth of the St. Francis.


John Graham Haggart: I thought that had already been built.


Mr. TALBOT.: I wish to ask the Minister of Railways what were the reasons given for the alteration of the conditions of the subsidy voted last year ? Under this resolution this line will strike a different point.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Talbot) that the reason which was given, as set forth by the member for Victoria (Mr. Costigan), is that the object of the company is to make connection with the Quebec bridge.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Will not this railway make a shorter route into New Brunswick than the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the expectation.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Then you are bonusing a road for private individuals that will be a shorter route than the Intercolonial Railway.


Samuel Hughes: Don't you think that in the public interest this should be made a part of the Intercolonial Railway rather than that we should bonus a rival company, and place them at a considerable advantage over ns ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: How much shorter will the line be, as now proposed, compared with the line subsidized last session ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know that this line would be any shorter. I do not think the change has been for the purpose of shortening the route, but as I understand it, the object of the promoters of this railway is to bring their Tine directly to the Quebec bridge, which is now being constructed. That is the object which is put before the government, and that is the object which it is intended to serve by this resolution. My bon. friend (Mr. Talbot) knows the locality better than I do.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: I would like to have my question answered. Are we voting this money to make a shorter route that will rival the Intercolonial Railway ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We are voting it to open a section of the country of great value, which is absolutely without any railway connection at present. It so happens that the railroad which will serve this section of the country will also be the shortest route between Quebec and St. John, N.B. That is a very good reason, perhaps, for making it a government road, but I must say to my hon. friend that the government is not prepared at this moment to adopt his policy and construct more government roads.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Then I take it that the declaration is made by the Prime Minister that he is ready to commit suicide-to kill the government road. This is his confession. He puts himself and his party in this position, that while they are custodians of that great property owned by the whole Dominion, they are going, for some local interest, to cut its throat. I am ashamed to hear such a confession as this made in this House. I have long had my eye on this mode of strengthening the government railway. I spent last week going down and looking over the whole situation. I have heard declarations in this House that the country must do something to solve the transportation problem, and it has been said that these bonuses which are being voted to-day are steps in the solution of that problem. They are nothing of the kind; they only aggravate the conditions which prevent a proper solution; and here is the government of the day proposing to open up a new road that will be a rival of the government road, and will tend to prevent a proper solution of the transportation problem. My idea of the solution of that problem is not the bonusing of every railway that comes along ; but there must be a railroad owned and controlled by the government of Canada from the Georgian Bay
to the city of Quebec, and thence to an ocean winter port in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. That road must be a first-class road in every respect. If I gained any information at all by the journey of last Saturday and Sunday, it was this, that there must be a great wheat road between the Georgian Bay and the seaboard, and that that road must go as far to the north as possible. To my mind it lies along the route of the Parry Sound road to the Ottawa river crossing at Hawkesbury, and thence by the straightest route to the city of Quebec. The road which we passed over last Sunday is not, I am sorry to say, what you would call a wheat road, owing to its sharp curves and steep grades. A wheat road must be as nearly on the level as possible. The mere building of what are called colonization roads will never solve the transportation problem. We must have a road from the Georgian Bay, as straight as we can get it, to the city of Quebec ; and then, for winter transportation, a road from the city of Quebec through Canadian territory by the most direct route to St. John or Halifax or Sydney, or wherever the port may be. I have long had my eye on the proposition to get a short cut from the city of Quebec via the Temiscouata Railway, if it can be got on reasonable terms, or by some other line, to the city of St. John ; and now we are proposing to subsidize a railway which we shall have to acquire shortly for that very purpose. While on my feet I want to refer to another phase of the transportation question which I gathered on that trip last week. The largest river and lake boats can meet the largest ocean steamers at the port of Quebec to-day. The water side of the transportation problem is now in a very fair shape, especially as the lower portion of the St. Lawrence is to be lighted properly, as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries told us the other day ; but we have not done a single thing yet to solve the rail side of the problem. The Grand Trunk have come the nearest to it by the way they run their Midland line to Montreal, and in a short time they will be devoting their energy to improving that road and giving it the best possible grades. But Quebec to-day is in a position, without any further expenditure, to handle millions of bushels of grain ; I do not believe Montreal is in that position ; and the Grand Trunk Railway have come to the point that they intend to be in the race for the carrying of the wheat that is to be carried by rail, .and they intend to spend more money in reducing their grades and getting the best possible line from Midland to Montreal or Quebec, or wherever their port may be. Now, the government are the custodians of the Intercolonial Railway, and they must find a way of supplying the links on that railway so that it will become a competitor or a rival, or, if you like to put it so, an

assistant of the Grand Trunk in doing the transportation by rail.


Samuel Hughes: Would not the Canadian Pacific Railway own the bulk of this line between Temiscouata and St. John ?


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: They might or might not. If the Canadian Pacific Railway get it, then so much the worse for the Intercolonial Railway. But the real rail solution of the problem is in getting the most direct line between the Georgian Bay via Quebec to St. John or Halifax, and this bonus is against that object. Just one word more in regard to that visit to Quebec of last week, and in regard to a Bill which will be presented here in connection with the transportation question. A proposal will be made to parliament to give to the Quebec Terminal Railway control of the entrance to Quebec along the Champlain road. I want to point out to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways that if ever Quebec is to be the ocean port of Canada, as I believe it will be for nine or ten months of the year, the entrance to the harbour will be along Champlain street.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not from the west.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: It will be for the great wheat road that will cross the Ottawa at Hawkesbury. If the hon. gentleman thinks he can get down by the St. Charles valley, he will make a mistake. The only way to get down to the harbour, where you can meet the large ocean liners, is along Champlain street ; and that little narrow entrance to the great harbour of Canada should not' be allowed to pass Into the hands of a private corporation. I protest against the Minister of Railways coming down here with a bonus which is aimed at the usefulness of the Intercolonial Railway owned by the people, and which will create a rival system to the national system.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: With regard to the relation of this Quebec and New Brunswick Railway to the Intercolonial, I think my hon. friend who has just taken his seat is somewhat mistaken. It is several miles away from the Intercolonial Railway, and is some distance from Quebec. The chef-lieu of my county is about twenty-five miles from Quebec. This new railway is already fifteen miles from the Intercolonial and keeps going further to the boundary of Maine all the time until it strikes the back of the county of Kamouraska. It would not affect the traffic of the Intercolonial Railway in any way.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Will it not make a shorter system ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: It will be a shorter route to St. John. It will be much shorter than either the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Intercolonial Railway from the city of Que-Mr. MACLEAN.
bee. The railway will run through a portion of country along the United States border, which has no railway communication and never had any. The Grand Trunk Railway formerly stopped at Riviere du Loup, but subsequently, the government purchased the Riviere du Loup branch, running along the water front of the St. Lawrence to L6vis ; but, in that portion of the country which this road is to traverse, and which is unprovided with railway communication, there are magnificent parishes all the way, thirty to seventy-five miles back of the St. Lawrence, while the Intercolonial Railway ruris along at a distance of only three or four miles from the St. Lawrence. Petitions have been sent to parliament for years asking for the construction of this Quebec and New Brunswick line, and there can be no doubt that it will contribute largely to the development of that back country.
The only objection that I now raise is to the change in the wording of the subsidy. When this road was first subsidized, it was agreed to construct it to a point on the Intercolonial Railway at St. Charles Junction, now we are asked to construct it to Chaudiere Junction, but whether it strikes either point will not shorten the line in any way or affect the traffic from the west.
I insist on the subsidy being left as it was originally voted, because the road would then go to a point in my county whicii is not provided with a railway, whereas by the *change it will go to St. Anselme. which already has railway connection, and because, in either case, as I have said, the line will not be shortened and the traffic from the west not affected.
There is already a road, the old Grand Trunk Rivifere du Loup branch, which runs from Levis by way of Chaudiere down to St. Charles, and by striking a point on the Intercolonial Railway at St. Charles Junction, you then utilize the old portion of the Intercolonial from St. Charles to the Chaudiere, and make it not merely a freight road but also a freight and passenger road. That is why I insist that the wording of the old subsidy should not be changed. There is no advantage in changing the wording, as that will not in any way shorten the line or help it in its traffic arrangements. I insist upon our going back to the wording of the old subsidy, because we will then give the old road the importance which it has lost since the building of the new St. Charles branch. If this new road strikes the Intercolonial Railway at a point at or near St. Charles Junction, it will give the old portion of the road three or four times the value it now has as a freight or passenger carrier.


John Graham Haggart: Is the road, as proposed in this subsidy, to cross the Quebec bridge ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Will not that road have a union or some station connected with the Intercolonial Railway ?



IS, 1901

Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I think that the intention of the new road is to connect with the Great Northern at the St. Lawrence bridge.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend, who is familiar with the locality, knows where the ChaudiSre Junction is. It is intended that the St. Lawrence bridge will connect with the ChaudiSre Junction, and the object of the amendment is to bring this Quebec and New Brunswick road direct to Chaudiere Junction, so as to give it immediate access to the Quebec bridge.


John Graham Haggart: It will have some connections all the same with the Intercolonial at the Chaudiere.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is just another illustration of the outrage on the rights of this House, that we have nothing to show where this road runs. The hon. Minister of Railways has plenty of draughtsmen at his command and they could easily furnish us with the maps required.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have more now than they can do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely, the House is entitled to some consideration. It is an outrage upon our rights that we should be asked to vote these subsidies blindly, without knowledge of the localities.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We are trying to find out. on the map where the road is which we are subsidizing, and are unable to do it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: 1 think I can satisfy the hon. gentleman. My hon. friend could not have a better map of the province of Quebec or New Brunswick than he has in his head. This railway is intended to start in the neighbourhood of Chaudiere Junction, then to 'go behind the chain of mountains and strike the valley of St. John river, and then strike the system of the New Brunswick Railways. My hon. friend knows that there is a chain of mountains at a short distance from the St. Lawrence, and the colonization movement has crossed the mountain chain and extend on the south side. This road will pass from ChaudiSre Junction to the county of Dorchester, and then follow the counties of Bellechasse, L'lslet. Kamouraska and Temiscouata, until it reaches the valley of the St. John, behind the county of L'lslet.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Near Edmonton.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Edmonton is due south of Riviere du Loup, or thereabouts. It will strike the valley of the St. John perhaps behind the county of L'lslet. My hon. friend knows the locality without referring to a map.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The right hon. gentleman has given us some further and definite information which I am sorry I could not just follow.


Samuel Hughes: This will be another through Canadian Pacific Railway line, and when the new bridge is completed at Quebec, the Canadian Pacific Railway will then be able to use its line on the north shore in connection with this line, as an additional through road to the sea. Some two months ago, I had a motion on the Order paper in favour of reducing the grades on the Intercolonial, to a minimum and giving all railways connecting with that road running powers over it, in order that our seaports might be built up. I also favoured the double-tracking of the line from Moncton to the seaboard, because the more traffic we can bring to our Canadian seaboard, the more will we build up our country.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I move that the words of the subsidy as voted last year be reinstated here.


Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.: which it was to pass. We found it almost absolutely necessary, in order to make progress with the construction of the road, that the subsidy , should be available for Clmudiere Junction, because it was the desire of the company to make this connection in order to go over the bridge into the city. Every one will understand the advantage of that to the road, and every one will understand the advantage to the city of having the road reach the city. Therefore, it is not a question of depriving the company of a subsidy, but of throwing the subsidy back into the old form and thus depriving the company of the advantage of reaching Quebec, which would greatly add to the difficulties of carrying out the enterprise. The amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) is a natural one. He represents the county of Bellechasse, and, perhajis from his point of view it is well to force the company to construct to St. Charles Junction. But I wish to call attention to one or two facts. The whole length of this road is calculated at one hundred and thirty odd miles. Over one hundred and ten miles of it would be in the province of Quebec, and not more than eighteen miles in the province of New Brunswick. The legislature of New Brunswick last session, though with limited means, did not hesitate to vote a subsidy for that portion of the road within the province. Some years ago the Quebec legislature granted a charter over the very country over which it is proposed to build now, and voted a bonus of 10,000 acres per mile to encourage the construction of the road. But as this was viewed as a purely colonization road, no capitalists could be found to take hold of it. The subsidy expired. And so the matter remained until a movement was made by the people of our province, and a proposition made to our friends in Quebec, showing that this woidd be an important road and that if we made the connection it would become an interprovincial railway. It was then the gentlemen from the province of Quebec took an active part, and the charter was secured and the subsidy granted. Now, with regard to this three miles, I would like the attention of the exMinister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) for a moment while I explain. The subsidy for that three miles was voted a year before this charter was obtained, and the subsidy granted to this road. It was voted on the old understanding. When the St. Francis was built, it was built as an extension of the Temiscouata and built by the Temiscouata Company. At that time, it was to be built to the mouth of the St. Francis. A subsidy was granted by the government, of which both the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and I were members. AVhen the railway reached Connor station which is the terminus of the branch-


John Graham Haggart: How long is that ?


John Costigan: 


John Costigan: Thirty-five miles. When the road reached there Mr. Connor had his mills there instead of putting them at the mouth of the St. Francis where we supposed the mills would be. So, it was thought unnecessai'y to push on over the three miles, as there was but little settlement, and no mills to create traffic. Until the mills were established at the mouth of the St. Francis, it was not thought necessary to go on.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was speaking of this as being a connecting link of the Temiscouata.


John Costigan: It is the extension of the St. Francis branch of the Temiscouata line. The three miles are covered by the present charter. It is to give the company the benefit of the power to use a subsidy for the three miles voted before that this revote for the three miles is proposed.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The changes I am now asking for do not affect the road in any way. I do not desire to keep the road from going straight to the proposed bridge on the St. Lawrence. It is only to change the route and enable the company to utilize a portion of the Intercolonial Railway which, if the road is built as my hon. friend is asking, will become perfectly useless. Both routes strike the same point, the Quebec bridge. But I want this old portion of the Intercolonial Railway to St. Charles, which is now only used for freight, to be used as a through line for both freight and passengers. The change would not affect the object of the road in any shape or form.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As there is a difference of opinion between the hon. gentlemen who are interested in this road and the proposition to restore the original words of the subsidy, it occurred to me that a modus vivendi might be reached to harmonize the views of both of these hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the subject. I would suggest that the words 'at or near the St. Charles Junction or at or near the Chaudi&re Junction' might be incorporated, so that it would be open to the Governor General in Council to determine which of these points should be made the terminus. It is not a point of great public interest, but if my hon. friend would approve of these words, I would suggest that they be inserted.


John Costigan: I would be sorry to have any misunderstanding with any Quebec member with regard to this road, as none of them is more interested in it than I am. I would be quite willing to accept the suggestion made, and it would be in keeping with our charter. That would go a little further and give the subsidy, in the wording of the charter itself, to a road from the St. Charles Junction or from the ChaudiSre

Junction, or from a point on the Quebec Central. That would be In accordance with the power parliament has granted to make these connections.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: The House seems much concerned in settling a little difference between two rival parishes interested in this railway, but we have not had any statement from the Minister of Railways and Canals in answer to my statement that the shortest line through Canadian territory is being subsidized by the Dominion, and a line that will cut the throat of the Intercolonial Railway as regards traffic. I make that statement here to-day and the government have no answer. I would like to know from the Minister of Railways and Canals what answer he can give, after all the expenditure he is asking the country to make in connection with the Intercolonial Railway-millions of dollars for cars, the contracts have gone through this session-mil-ions of dollars for harbour works at L6vis, in St. John, contracts of all kinds right and left-heavy rails being brought into the country-locomotives being built for a national railway, while a proposition is made here to-day to divert all that traffic from the Intercolonial Railway to a rival scheme owned by private individuals. I am raising a national question, and I would like an answer from the government. We have had the confession of the Prime Minister that this is the short road, and I believe it is the short road, following the line that was originally laid down for the Intercolonial Railway, but which the Imperial authorities objected to and compelled the Intercolonial Railway to take a great round sweep through a very inhospitable country.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The hon. member is altogether mistaken. It was the very best portion of Quebec that was chosen, not a roundabout route. It was no back country then, it was all front country.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: The front was taken to keep it as far away as possible from the state of Maine. Now we are coming back to find that the nearest and best line for the Canadian Pacific Railway is as near as we can get to it, and at great expense we are building a southern road there. The same thing is being done with this road and some others. I call the attention of the maritime members to the fact that when we are spending so much money on the Intercolonial Railway in every direction, we are subsidizing a road or a series of little roads, which will be linked into one and which will be made a rival of the Intercolonial Railway, and which stands now to pass into the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway. As one who thinks the Intercolonial Railway is the greatest single asset that Canada possesses to-day. I protest against this. I want the Intercolonial Railway to be kept for the people of Canada as a great road that will be regulative of the Grand Trunk Railway and of the Canadian Pacific Railway. But *
if you are going to build roads that will pass into the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway and of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that will divert the traffic that the Intercolonial Railway has to-day, and its prospective traffic, then you are making a mistake, you are guilty of an unnational policy. It is contrary to the interests of the people of Canada, who are blindly groping to find a solution of what is called the transportation problem. It is simply throwing money away, it is injuring our national interests, and where it is going to end God only knows.


Mr. FOWLER.: While it is important that nothing should be done to interfere with the Intercolonial Railway, yet it is still more important that we should find the shortest means of communication to the west and the seaboard. It seems to me that is being done by the proposition before us, and therefore I am heartily in favour of it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I desire to reassure my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) as to the possible disastrous consequences which he apprehends will follow the construction of this line. If this line is built it is not going to be a competitor of the Intercolonial Railway, it is not going to strike a blow at the pre-eminence of that railway in any degree.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: How much nearer will St. John be by this road than by Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend does not realize that the Canadian Pacific Railway would be the owner of this line, at least to the extent of two-thirds if not three-fourths of its entire distance. The Canadian Pacific Railway is the owner of a line from St. John to Montreal through its entire distance, and I cannot conceive the early possibility of the Canadian Pacific Railway acquiring this line or making connections with it, using the rest of its line from Edmonton to St. John, and thereby constituting a through line of railway from Quebec to this point, when the Canadian Pacific Railway has, from another and a further point, a direct line only 440 miles in length from Montreal to St. John.
I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman is a zealous admirer and supporter of the Intercolonial Railway ; I am glad to know that he is solicitous about it at all times and seasons. Solicitous and all as he is, and solicitous as I would naturally be in relation to anything that would be harmful to the Intercolonial Railway, I would not hesitate to give support and assistance to this project, and in doing so I would not feel that it was impinging in the slightest degree on the interests of the Intercolonial Railway. These people have no railway communication. They have a very fine country, as I understand it, and they ought to have railway communication. They have been left practically out in the woods. Why should

we refuse to give them the ordinary aid, traversing a splendid country as this railway does, because we might interfere with the local traffic which would be taken up and which might be diverted from the Intercolonial Railway ? I think there would be no reason to suppose that any traffic as a consequence would fail to be carried by the Intercolonial Railway. I propose that the clause be altered by including all three points which are named in the company's charter at which the construction of this line may commence. X move :
That the words, ' from a point at or near St. Charles Junction, or at or near ChaudiSre Junction, or a point on the Quebec Central Railway, near St. Anselme, Quebec,' be inserted in place of the words ' at or near Chaudidre Junction.'
Resolution as amended, agreed to.
To the Montreal and Province Line Railway Company, for a line of railway from Parnham, Quebec, to Frelighsburg, in lieu of the subsidy granted by 1900, chap 8, sec. 2, paragraph 37, not exceeding nineteen miles, $60,800.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a railway that was subsidized last year from Frelighsburg to the international boundary line. It is part of the Montreal and Province line. It has had different names and it lias been six or seven times before parliament, although we subsidized an additional mileage to that which we are now proposing to subsidize. Last year, when we were proposing to subsidize the line from Farnham to the international boundary, the expectation was that the Grand Trunk Railway, either through its main line or the Central Vermont organization, would build the line. The Grand Trunk Railway engaged to build the line, but it concluded that there was no object to be gained by going to the international boundary. The main object was to get to Frelighsburg. The company, in the opinion of the law department of the government, cannot contract to build the line to Frelighsburg under the vote, but they must contract for it to the international boundary, and as it would then only have to take off two miles to reach Frelighsburg, we propose to limit the road to nineteen miles, which will bring it to Frelighsburg.
For a line of railway from a point on the Intercolonial Railway at or near Windsor Junction to Upper Musquodoboit, in lieu of 1897, chap. 4, sec. 2, paragraph 23, not exceeding forty miles, $128,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a line of railway connecting the Musquodoboit Valley, a very productive portion of the province of Nova Scotia, with the Intercolonial Railway.


An hon. MEMBER.: What do you call it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Musquodoboit. In that country they have these delightful Indian names.


Samuel Hughes: Are there any -voters along the line ?


Andrew George Blair: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are voters along the line, and I do not mind telling my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) that they are the best type of voters in the world.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the subsidy which it is proposed to vote for this line is a very deserving one. It is a curious thing that the county of Halifax has only about twenty-five or thirty miles of railway in it. Although I think there are about 35,000 people in that county, they have been cut off from railway communication at all times. They have not had any railway communication with the outside world at all. That is true of the eastern and western parts of the county of Halifax. Now, the criticism I -would be inclined to make on this resolution is that the line should extend through the county of Guysbo-rough. It appears that the government have thought otherwise. I know that the people who were promoting this enterprise four or live years ago, had a good deal of difficulty because the line did not extend from Upper Musquodoboit through the county of Guysborough. Whether they will be able to overcome that difficulty now, I do not know. I hope they will. But, it seems to me that that is a valid criticism upon this project. If the votes provided for in the first and fourth resolutions were consolidated so that we would have a trunk line from Halifax to the eastern part of the province, it seems to me that the project would be improved. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals will see, that with the present line running along the south side of Nova Scotia from Yarmouth to Halifax, and continuing from Halifax to Guysborough we would have not only a line along the north side of the province, from Yarmouth to Halifax, running through Pictou and Cape Breton by way of the Intercolonial Railway, but along the south side of the province we would have exactly the same thing. But, you stop this line of railway from Upper Musquodoboit at forty miles, and you stop it at a place which has no great population, and which has no particular merits as a terminal point, although it might afford some local traffic to a line running through. That is the difficulty about the successful carrying out of the project before the committee, although I regard it as some measure of comfort for the county of Halifax.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: Mr. Chairman, I have to add my support to what has been already said. It is quite true that a longer railway might have been of greater advantage, but the people of the valley probably decided that it would be more advantageous to them to undertake that which it was in their means to accomplish, rather than to have a longer and more ambitious line which might be longer delayed in its completion. The people of the valiey are cut off entirely from communication, and in consequence of

the want of communication with the sea or with lines of railway, their products are of comparatively little value to them. A large number of the more active young men of the district have left. The people of the valley have done all they could. They have endeavoured to get companies to construct the road, and they are supporting the project to the utmost of their ability. The Nova Scotia government has aided in the work of subsidizing the road to an extent equal to that which is asked from this government. Now, I think from these considerations, fulfilling all the requisites laid down by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), there will be no difficulty on the part of hon. gentlemen on either side of the House supporting this very necessary undertaking. It will add materially to the revenue of the Intercolonial Railway, because the road does not run parallel with the Intercolonial Railway, but it brings a certain portion of the country into connection with,the Intercolonial at Windsor Junction. It runs diagonally to the Intercolonial Railway, and will tap a large district contributing materially to the revenue of the Intercolonial Railway. I give my cordial support to this vote.
For a line of railway from Pubnico, Nova Scotia, to Port Clyde or Clyde River, in lieu of the unexpended balance of subsidy by 1897, chap. 4, sec. 2, paragraph 29, not exceeding thirty-one miles, $99,200.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is part of the through line which the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has just mentioned, as running from Halifax to Yarmouth, on the South Shore. In 1897 we subsidized sixty-one miles of this line from Yarmouth to Port Clyde. Thirty miles have been built and the subsidy has been earned. Twenty miles more have been built, and partially operated, though I think it is not in technical operation to-day. These twenty miles, together with the remainder of that grant, will lapse unless renewed, but it is part of a large through line to which The government of Nova Scotia are granting very special and exceptional aid. The sections of the road which have been hitherto constructed, and the sections which will be built, will form an enterprise which I think will find favour in the country.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can tell the hon. gentleman from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) that the country through which this railway runs is described as the richest part of the province for producing timber, and by reason of its mineral resources.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no doubt at all that this line will within a reasonable period, be a line that will accommodate a very great deal of traffic. The southern shore of the province has become more and more accessible to American tourists, and they are flocking there in the *summer in very great numbers. I think it |
will have the same success that the Cape Breton railway had in that respect.
To the Toronto, Lindsay and Pembroke Railway Company, for a line of railway from the western terminus of the twenty miles subsidized by 1889, chap. 7, sec. 2, paragraph 47, westerly towards Bancroft, not exceeding twenty miles, in lieu of the subsidy granted by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, paragraph 3 ; also from the terminus of previously subsidized lines at a point about forty miles west from Golden Lake westerly to Bancroft, not exceeding eleven miles; in all not exceeding thirty-one miles, $99,200.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The history of this road is this. By 56 Victoria, chapter 98. of the province of Ontario, the Pembroke Southern Railway was incorporated to build a line from Pembroke to Douglas, and by 59 Victoria that Act was amended so as to allow the company to construct their line from Pembroke to Golden Lake. In 1897 the Dominion government granted a subsidy of $3,200 per mile to aid in the construction of the railway. That has been built, the subsidy earned and paid over, and the road is now in successful operation. By 62 Victoria (1899) the Ontario legislature incorporated the Toronto, Lindsay and Pembroke Company for the purpose of building from the terminus of the Pembroke Southern Railway to Bancroft in the county of Hastings, a distance of fifty-one miles. Application was made for a subsidy to the Dominion government, and by 02-63 Victoria, assistance was granted for twenty miles. Under 03-64 Victoria, further subsidy was granted to the line between Golden Lake and Bancroft, but the wording of that grant was defective and it was doubtful whether we could caiTy out the intention of the Act. The latter of the subclause read :
From the western terminus of the twenty miles subsidized by chap. 4 of the Act of 1899, for a distance not exceeding twenty miles.
The twenty miles subsidy given by chapter 4 of 1897, was given to the Pembroke Southern Railway, and this subsidy was earned and paid over before any vote was really made for the road between Golden Lake and Bancroft. This resolution is passed for the purpose of substituting it in lieu of what was intended by the previous vote, and in order to remove the doubt which was entertained by the Railway Department, and by the Department of Justice and by the company.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Docs the minister think he is complying with the law in voting money in that way.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Quite so. They have gone on upon the assurance that we would correct what was an uncertainty about it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I wish to say that this will form another new route from Ottawa to the west. It is all right.

For a line of railway from Chipman Station, N.B., to Gibson, in lieu of the subsidies granted by 1897, chap, 4, and 1899, chap. 7, sec. 2, paragraph 31, not exceeding forty-five miles, $144,-
000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a revote of a grant which was made from Chipman Station-adjacent to the Newcastle coal mine, the only coal we know of in the province of New Brunswick situated in the county of Queen's-to Gibson which is a point opposite the city of Fredericton on the St. John river. This forty-five miles would be an extension of the line towards the St. John river to a point immediately opposite Fredericton.


George William Fowler: Is this the same line for which a subsidy has been voted by the local government ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Exactly the same.
To the Inverness and Richmond Railway Company for a line of railway from a point at or near Point Tupper on the Intercolonial Railway, to Broad Cove and Cheticamp, Nova Scotia, in lieu of the subsidies, granted by 1897, chap. 4, 1899, chap. 7, sec. 2, paragraph 29, and 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, paragraph 27, not exceeding ninety-eight miles, $313,600.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a gathering up of several sections of road which have been voted subsidies from time to time, and consolidating them in one vote. The proposed road starts from the Intercolonial Railway at the Strait of Canso and runs along northward on the coast of the county of Inverness passing through a very good farming section, and also through valuable coal fields. It runs to the shire town of Port Hood, thence to Mabou, on to Broad Cove, which has one of the most valuable coal deposits in the province, and up to the very large French fishing settlement of Cheticamp. The road was built from Port Hastings as far as Port Hood, and I think they are rapidly extending the whole work.


John Graham Haggart: I thought this road was nearly finished.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Some parts of the subsidy has actually been paid and of course this is for the balance.
For a line of railway from Caplin to Paspebiac, Quebec, in lieu of subsidy granted by 1899, chap. 7, sec. 2, paragraph 15, the subsidy contract to be entered into with the trustees or receivers under mortgage from the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company, and to contain the conditions that the subsidy when earned shall be paid in the following manner :-
1st. To the Hamilton Bridge Works Company in payment for bridge superstructures on the said section of railway, when furnished and erected by that company, not to exceed $35,000.
2nd. For the completion of the road-bed and works incidental thereto.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: 3rd. Towards payment of overdue balances, pro rata, in settlement of claims for labour, boarding-house claims, and material and supplies furnished in connection with the construction of the said section of railway; in all not exceeding thirty miles, $96,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a subsidy framed in a special way. It is a revote, and it has already been passed upon by parliament. It is an extension to Paspebiac of what is known as the Baie des Chaleurs Railway.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Atlantic and Lake Superior ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Atlantic and Lake Superior, as it is now called. We have asked that this subsidy be paid under certain conditions. First, the Hamilton Bridge Company are to be paid, on furnishing the bridge, a sum not exceeding $35,000. This road has been- under construction, and I think has been pretty well completed down to within about three miles of Paspebiac ; but, although the subsidy was alive, yet, by reason of difficulties connected with the organization of the company, and by reason of the credit of the company not being what might be desired, the bridge company, before they would proceed with the construction of the bridge, required some assurance that they would be paid for the bridge out of the subsidy, if a renewal of the subsidy were granted by parliament.
Mi-. WALLACE. Is the railway company a consenting party ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. Then, there are the three miles, or whatever may remain of the rest of the thirty miles to be completed before the subsidy is earned; and whatever it may cost to complete this shall be paid next in order out of this subsidy. If there is any balance of the subsidy after that, it will go to liquidate the claims of labourers, persons who have furnished supplies, boardinghouse keepers, and others.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose the boarding-house keepers have nothing coming to them, are you going to go hawking around for second or third claims ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. We have already claims from these people filed. No doubt a great many of them are just and honest claims, and ought to be paid.


Samuel Hughes: After you settle the claim of a labourer, you should let him go and settle his own board bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will take care that two people are not paid for the same bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is nothing set out here to show what class of claims shall be

paid. In the first place, I think you are establishing a very had precedent by voting subsidies to railways that have claims standing against them; because you will have plenty of applications of the same kind. I could understand it if you specified that only legal claims would be paid.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman would not suggest that we should provide in the Bill to pay legal claims. We will not pay claims which are illegal.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend would not say that we should have judgments of the court before we would pay claims of labouring men amounting to $20 or $25.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say you are laying down a bad precedent. In granting charters we always stipulate that claims established by the courts shall be paid.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This road has been in a most unfortunate position. It is the old Baie des Chaleurs Railway, which has been reorganized as the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway. The people of Gaspe need this railway very badly. Three or four years ago the railway was granted a subsidy for an extension from Caplin to Paspebiac. A good deal of work has been done by the Atlantic and Lake Superior Company, but it has not paid its bills, and is insolvent, and trustees have taken possession of the road. We make provision that they will complete the road, but they are not to touch a single dollar of the subsidy which we are voting except what they shall earn. All the money which goes to complete the road shall be paid to the parties who do the work, and after that, if there is a balance, the intention is to pay the outstanding claims of workmen and others. The Minister of Railways has in his hands a number of these claims.


James Clancy: Have they all been filed ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know. Perhaps there may be some which have not been filed. But I know that the Minister of Railways has in his hands claims for overdue bills for wages, accounts for board, materials, provisions furnished, and so forth. It is intended to do the best we can with the balance of the money-to distribute it pro rata among all these creditors. I do not know that we could have done anything better than that.


John Graham Haggart: I do not understand the clause in the first paragraph: ' the subsidy when earned.' Is the money to be advanced on progress estimates, or when the road is finished ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: They have to finish the thirty miles of road.


John Graham Haggart: That will remove a good deal of the*difficulty.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: This railway runs through the county of Bonaventure, which I have the honour to represent, and the subsidy covers thirty miles from Caplin to Paspebiac, which means reaching deep water. There is a fine harbour at Paspebiac, where boats can come in during ten mouths in the year, and I suppose the government will before long give us a good wharf to accommodate them. The road runs to within three miles of Paspebiac, and it has been operated for the English bondholders since July last, with the exception of three or four days of the heaviest storms of last winter, and the men who have operated the road during that time have been paid regularly. Next we shall attempt to have a company organized, either by these bondholders or trustees, to have the road continued down to Port Daniel, which is the last parish in Bonaventure, and ultimately to GaspS Basin, for which a subsidy has already been voted. As the right hon. the Prime Minister has said, the county has been most unfortunate. The road was first started in 1885, under the name of the Baie des Chaleurs Company. Then it was transferred to the Atlantic and Lake Superior Company. In July last the company became insolvent, its time checks are scattered all over the country, very few of the labourers have been paid, and they are clamouring for their wages, and this solution which the government is bringing about is the only solution possible of one of the most entangling railway messes on record in the history of Canada.


John Graham Haggart: I must make another appeal for the correspondence. In the case of the subsidy to the Inverness and Richmond Railway Company, there must be a good deal of correspondence in connection with the negotiations for the securing of that subsidy. There must also be a lot of correspondence in connection with the subsidy No. 9. Surely these papers ought to be on the Table.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There has not been any correspondence.


John Graham Haggart: That is impossible.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There has been an application by the trustees.


John Graham Haggart: There must be correspondence relating to both these subsidies. There could not have been this arrangement made with the trustees of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Company unless there was correspondence, and that correspondence should be put on the Table. Why should we have to wait until the subject comes up before we can get the information we require. I want the applications and all the papers with reference to these subsidies so that I can read them myself.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We have reached now the 9th subsidy, and we have not seen a



single paper laid on the Table. Some one put a map on the Table and explained it and that is all the information given us. We are entitled to have all the documents and correspondence. In this case of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Company, the minister says there is no correspondence.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not a particle.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Does he mean to tell us that before giving a subsidy to a road In which so many conflicting interests were concerned, there were no negotiations and correspondence ? That is imposing on our credulity a little too much. The power is given the minister to say what claims for labour, for board, for supplies, and; materials furnished in connection with the construction of the line of railways from Caplin to Paspebiac shall be paid and how they shall be paid, and yet he tells us that he has no correspondence or other documents to lay before us. I think the right hon. the First Minister stated that claims had come in. These claims are in the possession of the government and we are entitled to all the information that justifies the vote we are asked to give.
We are rushing these subsidies through with railroad speed, without a tittle of information. The government refuses to give us the papers, but come down in the last days of the session and ask us to vote millions of dollars without our being put in possession of any data which will enable us to vote intelligently. For my part I must enter my protest.
Last year we voted millions of dollars in a similar way. We voted a subsidy, for instance, to the Rainy River Railway, which is practically a parallel line to the Canadian Pacific Railway, from Winnipeg to Port Arthur or Fort William. The country through which it passes is not worth considering in the light of traffic, and the road can only be considered as connecting the city of Winnipeg and the Georgian Bay ports, so that it is immaterial whether both these roads -are built ten or fifty miles distant from each other, they are practically parallel lines. No doubt some of these subsidies are most justifiable, but I say that we should have special justification for every vote of a railway subsidy, and not simply be asked to rote the money on the general principle that Ihe line is going to benefit somebody or some portion of the country. My experience and observation bear me out in saying that these subsidies often go largely into the hands of bonus hunters and speculators.
It does not reach the people, and is not intended to benefit the people. The money is largely squandered, and they say that some of it goes back to where it started from, instead of being used for the interest of the public.
At six o'clock, House took recess.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
House in committee on Bill (No. 67) to incorporate the Quebec Terminal and Railway Company.-Mr. Malouin.
On section 1,


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: This Bill contains the proposition I referred to this afternoon. The Quebec Bridge Company, which has been so largely subsidized, is to turn over to a subsidiary company, as I understand the Bill, the right to build a road between the end of the bridge and the city of Quebec and around the city. And, under this Bill, this private company-not the bridge company- will control the railway entrance into the city of Quebec along the shore of the river. There is only sufficient land there for one road, and I believe that provision ought to be made whereby the rail traffic which is expected to come from the west and the traffic from the Intercolonial Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway on the south, if it wishes to cross to Quebec, should be given the best means of access to the city. This road ought to be in the hands of the public and not in the hands of a private corporation. I would like the government to give their views in regard to having a private company get possession of this most important entrance into the port of Quebec.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My impression is, and I think I am right, that the Quebec Bridge Company already possesses the powers which are here granted to this new company. The only new power granted here to this company is the power to contract with the Quebec Bridge Company to enter the city. I may say that in this instance, as in many instances in the present session, when a Bill has been carefully considered by the Railway Committee, unless there are strong reasons given to the contrary, the policy I would advocate would be that of supporting the views of the Railway Committee. I have not looked into the case for a long time, but I think that all the powers given to the company are contained in clause 7 :
The company may lay out, construct and operate, by steam, electricity, or other power, a railway of the gauge of four feet eight and one-half inches from a point at or near the northern terminus of the Qubec bridge in the parish of St. Poye to the city of Quebec, and from the southern terminus of the Quebec bridge to a point at or near the point of intersection of the Grand Trunk Railway with the Intercolonial Railway at ChaudiSre Curve, in the county of Ldvis, or at any point on the Grand Trunk Railway to the east thereof.
But the company shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section unless and until the Quebec Bridge Company (which is hereby authorized and empowered so to do), has signified in writing its assent to the exercise by the company of such power^ of construction and operation.

With regard to the entrance to the city of Quebec, I do not admit, as represented by my hon. friend, that there is only one entrance into the city. There is already an entrance by the way of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Charlevoix Railway. They have power to bring their railways to the Champlain market, where there are two railways. It is intended that there should be a common station at the Champlain market, which is just opposite the Frontenac Hotel to-day, one coming from the west and the other from the east.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: I desire to ask the right hon. gentleman if, when the original company was chartered to build this bridge, the government retained some kind of control over the tolls and over the running arrangements in return for the immense subsidies which have been voted by this parliament, by the province, and also. I believe, by the city.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I cannot say at this moment, but I am quite sure power is retained over the tolls.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: The company had power to build this terminal road in the original charter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I understand so.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The committee took good care to incorporate in this Bill two sections of the Railway Act which give control to the government over the rates that can be charged by this company, and compel the company to grant equal facilities in every regard to all railroads that wish to use this road.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: That was not in the original Bill.


Samuel Hughes: When this was before the Railway Committee, I was interested in having it referred to a special committee, which brought in much needed amendments. There is just one point that I think might be improved in the Bill, and to which I draw the attention of the First Minister. I think he misunderstood my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) in speaking of the one entrance. What he meant was the entrance between the cliffs and the river. There is only room for one railway there. When the Crow's Nest Pass Railway charter was being granted, there was supposed to be just room enough for one track between the mountain side and a little lake in the pass, and we remember the discussion that took place on the necessity of granting running powers over the Crow's Nest Pass Railway to any other road. The reason that I wanted this Bill safeguarded is this : I hope it will not be many pears until the whole space up as far as Wolfe's Cove, in Quebec, will be provided, not with the old shipping docks of timber, which I suppose have disappeared, but with 174J
modern docks for the reception of steamships, where they can receive and disembark freight. In that case, there being a very narrow passage there between the cliff and where the railways must necessarily end, one can readily see that a road controlling one, or at most two tracks along there, would have the whole of that great traffic more or less at its mercy. It is found to be so in many great cities. Take Chicago, for instance. The Transfer Railway Company there actually holds the freight traffic of the great west at its mercy, or did until the matter was controlled a short time ago. I would suggest that, as in the Crow's Nest Pass charter, precaution was taken that running powers should be given over that line to any other company under the jurisdiction of the Governor in Council, or of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, so I maintain that precaution should be taken here so that the company might not be able to favour one railway or individual more than another, when Quebec has become a big shipping port, as I trust it will. Therefore, would it not be advisable that this matter should be absolutely controlled, that the company should have no power to favour one railway more than another, and thereby delay, for instance, to bring in cars from one company.


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is provided for.


Samuel Hughes: I am not sure that it is provided that running powers may be given to other roads. I admit tlierd* is a provision that it shall be subject to order in council. But supposing they come and make all sorts of excuses to the Railway Committee and say : We have only one engine, and we cannot attend to all these matters, and we could not possibly get the cars out of that elevator, or on to that dock in time that the freight might be placed on the ship before it sailed. I am only pointing out what may arise if Quebec becomes a great shipping port. I do not oppose the Bill, but in the interest of the Quebec harbour and of the public, I want this company carefully controlled as it was in the case of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think the clause which has been adopted will answer all the purposes intended by my hon. friend. This is the new section which has been added by the Railway Committee :
lla. Sections 17 and 18 of chapter 98 of the statutes of 1887 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the company and all its undertakings, franchises and facilities, and equal rights and privileges shall be enjoyed by all other companies over and upon the company's railway and all its facilities.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Should there not be some penalty provided or some means whereby the government could compel that being done ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think the court can enforce it.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The Railway Committee of the Privy Council has power to enforce it.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: But a private company can get control of a terminal road, as has happened In some of the big cities of the States, where they have had all the roads at their mercy, notwithstanding some such provision as this. There is a terminal railway which controls two bridges at St. Louis and which is master of the situation there.


Mr. BRITTON.: No, their engines are obliged to haul trains of another company.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Yet that terminal railway is one of the grievances at St. Louis. This is an important point. We have no national railways in this country except a small portion of one, but it is a most valuable asset. The easiest thing towards establishing a national system of railways is for the state to control and own an entrance into every great centre. If the entrance !into the cities passes into the hands of a corporation and the public is not protected, then great Injury may be done to the public and to that particular city. I trust that the greatest care will be exercised by the government in regard to this ; and I hope the premier and the Minister of Railways and Canals will make some additional provision. (If it is not done in this House, I hope it will be done in the Senate before the Bill is finally passed.


Samuel Hughes: As an instance, take the great harbour of Montreal, in which the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) Is so much interested; every one who knows anything about that harbour knows that one of the greatest drawbacks to shipping there is the fact that railway trains can only go to the docks during the night. The Grand Trunk Railway Company moves a train, or possibly two or three trains, down there to unload during the night, and if the cars are not unloaded before daylight, it has to haul them two or three miles out to the yards, and wait until after sundown. At Quebec, if ships are billed to sail on a certain day, and the trains of the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canada Atlantic Railway, the Quebec and Lake St. John and the Great Northern, all want to get to the wharfs and there is only one track and one set of engines to haul the cars, it is the easiest thing in the world, if the terminal company wants to favour one railway company more than another, to block almost completely for hours the freight of one line while permitting the other to be loaded on the vessels. That is the only point that I want safeguarded. If these other companies had the right to run their cars and engines on the road, I am satisfied the harbour of Quebec will be greatly benefited,


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: and that it will become a great port, but, if there is a loop hole, rest assured that these people will take advantage of it, or will bleed the railway companies accordingly.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) is perfectly right in what he says, but he will find that this has been entirely provided for in the Bill. This company is subjected to the provisions of the general railway Act under section 240, as amended, which provides that the railway company must grant every facility to any forwarder of freight, it does not matter whom. The Railway Committee of the Privy Council has absolute power to control this matter. But, there is a further safeguard. It is expressly provided by this Bill that the company shall not grant any facilities to one company that it does not grant to another.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Suppose it does an injustice, how would you rectify it ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: It is under the control of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, which has power to deal with it. In addition to that, the Governor in Council has control of the rates, and has power to fix the maximum rates that will be charged by this company. If the Governor in Council has power to fix the maximum rates charged by this company, and if the Railway Committee of the Privy Council has power to see that the company shall grant equal facilities to every railway or transportation company, it seems to me that the Railway Committee of the House has been most careful in guarding against every possible trouble that might suggest itself to the mind of any hon. gentleman.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose that the engines of this terminal company failed to deliver, or to take away from the dock, cars in a reasonable time; is there any provision whereby the government, or the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, might step in and say that the engines of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the Grand Trunk Railway, shall have running powers over the road 1


Fletcher Bath Wade: Section 240 of the Railway Act is exactly the same as section 2 of .the original English Railway Act of 1854, which has been amended by the Act of 1888, I think. There have been several decisions under both the original section and the present section as amended, and these decisions have defined expressly what the company must do. The railway commissioners in England who have the same powers of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council here, have power, if additional engines are required to handle the business of the public to order the same, and so the Railway Committee of the Privy Council here has power to order the same, and if the order of the Railway Committee is not obeyed,

any person interested may come to the Supreme Court of Canada and have the order of the Railway Committee made an order of said court, and have it enforced by mandamus or injunction.


Samuel Hughes: Why not have a provision in this Bill similar to that in the Crow's Nest Pass Bill, giving other roads the right to run over the road.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think you have it in the Bill already.


Samuel Hughes: To allow the engines of other companies to run over the road ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly.


Samuel Hughes: It says that this company shall grant to a company the same facilities as it grants to any other company.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Section 11a is as follows :
Sections 17 and 18 of chapter 98 of the statutes of 1887 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the company and all its undertakings, franchises and facilities, and equal rights and privileges shall be enjoyed by all other companies over and upon the company's railway and all Its facilities.
It seems to me that my hon. friend's views are entirely met.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Supposing that the equal rights are very narrow ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Well, then, my hon. friend will have to write to the World and ask to have an agitation over it.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



RELIEF OF LILIAS MIDDLETON.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACLEAN moved the third reading Bill (No. 128) for the relief of Lilias Middleton.
Byron Moffatt Britton: I want to emphasize in this particular case what I said on the motion which I made in the earlier part of the session in reference to this question of divorce. If there ever was a case in which the grounds of relief were beyond controversy it is this case. You can hardly conceive of a case in which the proof was easier than in this one, and yet this woman, unfortunately linked to a bad man, and having just ground for the dissolution of the marriage tie, is put to an expense, exclusive of what she paid her own lawyer, amounting to $458 in actual disbursements. That is an example of the difficulty of persons of limited means obtaining redress in cases where the law of the land concedes redress shall be granted. Without enlarging the ground on which divorce is to be
obtained, but simply in a case in which we all concede divorce is warranted, the expense is practically a bar to many persons.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Is it the pleasure of the House that this Bill shall be read a third time now ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, and Bill read the third time, and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 129) respecting the St. Lawrence and Adirondack Railway Company-Mr. Monk.
Bill (No. 135) respecting the Great Northern Railway of Canada.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 130) for the relief of James Ward McDonald-on division.-Mr. Lennox.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE delivered a Message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the Message as follows :
[Stage Direction]
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons further supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending June 30, 1902, and, in accordance with the provisions of ' The British North America Act, 1867,' the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, May 18, 1901.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee to consider certain proposed resolutions respecting subsidies to railway companies and towards the construction of railways and works therein mentioned.
To the Schomberg and Aurora Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point on the Grand Trunk Railway between King and Newmarket, Ontario, to Schomberg, in lieu of the subsidy granted by 1897, chap. 4, not exceeding fifteen miles, $48,000.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a revote to continue a subsidy which we voted in 1897. This railway runs through a somewhat difficult country north of Toronto. This road, I think,' would have been built before this had it not been that the department was unable to approve of the plans that were submitted, and the grades and curves shown. After the plans were rejected by the de-

partment we sent; an officer of the department to make an examination of the ground and see whether* a better line could not be obtained. Ultimately a route was found which I think we shall be able to accept. The subsidy will expire on the 1st of August next, and as no progress has been made with the work, it is necessary to revote the subsidy.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Where does the road start from the Grand Trunk ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Somewhere between King and Newmarket. I have not the knowledge of the locality to enable me to say just at what point. I have not the knowledge of the locality which would enable me to do that. Perhaps the hon. gentleman might know himself.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I know the locality, but want to know where the point is where it leaves the Grand Trunk Railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Somewhere between these two points.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: They are twelve miles apart.


John Graham Haggart: The vote before was for a railway run by electricity ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: Is this the road in Mr. Mulock's county ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: One of the provisions was that the road might be run by electricity.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is not in the Act.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Who are the applicants for the bonus ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We received the application for a renewal from the solicitor, Mr. Barwick.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: He represents the people who control the franchise for the Metropolitan road, which is an electric road, I believe. This is an extension of that system and will be an electric road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Whatever may be the intention, they have not yet made any statement of that kind to the government, and the subsidy, when voted before, was voted in the ordinary way.


Uriah Wilson: Has the hon. minister laid on the Table the papers he promised this morning about the extra subsidy given the three railways ?


Andrew George Blair: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will have them on Monday.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether this is to be an electric road, or whether the company has the power to make it an electric road. I wish to know whether, under the wording of this vote, the company will have power to run an electric road in connection with the Metropolitan railway which runs through Newmarket. I think that the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) was correct in saying that the first intention was that the road should be run by electricity.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That question has not yet arisen in connection with this railway any more than with any other railway. If the promoters desire that the road should be run by electricity, that would have to be considered when the contract is entered into, but matters have not reached that stage yet.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We should know when we are voting the money.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have never been applied to for the purpose of sanctioning the construction or operation of the road as an electric railway.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Who are the incorporators ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I could not tell at this moment. I am just advised that there was an agreement entered into with this company in July, 1899, but that nothing has been done. The subject as to whether or not this road should be run by electricity has not been mentioned, and has not been provided in the contract. I have only the ordinary application from Mr. Barwick.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Can I have the opportunity of looking at it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What does the hon. gentleman want to see ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Everything.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. gentleman should accept my statement that I have nothing here except the correspondence from Mr. Barwick.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I want to know who are the incorporators ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not got that information.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman must have it in the department, and should have it here. We want to know who are the company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The president is Mr. Charles D. Warren. Here is his signature to the application of the company for a renewal of the subsidy.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Will the hon. gentleman put those papers on the Table of the House connected with the Schomberg and Aurora Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I , have given the hon. gentleman all the information in my possession.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. minister has given us the name of the president. What are the names of the others connected with the road ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The only name I know of is that of Mr. Warren besides that of Mr. Barwick, the solicitor.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The president is the president of the electric railway, and this road connects with it, I presume. We ask for more information, and the hon. gentleman is refusing to lay on the Table a single paper.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the use of nagging about the papers, when I have nothing more than I have said.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman has a whole bundle of papers in his hand.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, and whieh I do not propose to hand over.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The president of the company, in making the application, has to give reasons which justify the minister in asking for this grant of $48,000. Let us have that information. I think that that is a fair proposition.
This is information we are entitled to have. The minister may fold his arms and be indifferent, but that is not the way to get votes through ; that is not the way the House should be treated. The House is entitled to have whatever documents have justified the application that was made and all the reasons given in support of the application for this subsidy. We wish to know whether this was to be an electric or a steam railway, whether it is to be connected with the Grand Trunk Railway or with the electric road that runs through Aurora and Newmarket, the Metropolitan Railway. The minister says he will give us such information as may be suitable to himself ; but I can tell him that we are entitled to all the information. We are entitled to know who the incorporators of this company are. But we have no more information than that Charles D. Warren is the president and that Mr. Barwick is the solicitor. We are entitled to more information than that. The
hon. gentleman has the papers under his hand. Why does he not lay them on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is nothing in my, possession nor has anything reached the department that would show who are the board of directors of the company. The papers disclose that Mr. Warren is the president and Mr. Barwick the solicitor.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: What does the paper signed by these gentlemen contain ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: railway within the specified time on account of the delay which has chiefly been caused by the difliculty in finding a grade on which the line was to be constructed which would he approved by the Department of Railways.
The company requests that the time for complying with the above condition be extended in the Railway Subsidy Act for this year.
(Sgd.) CHAS. D. WARREN,
President.

Dated at Toronto, March 14, 1901.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: We now have this information. It was not to embarrass the Minister of Railways that we asked for it. If the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) were here we might have got the information more easily. The minister himself probably knows something about this company and what it tried to do this past year. They tried in the night to connect their line with that of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and were only stopped toy the interference of the police. But even the Railway Committee of the Privy Council werq prepared to assist them in carrying out what they had in view. It was directly against the interests of the city of Toronto and against the interests of the people who live on Yonge street. The greatest thoroughfare in Canada is Yonge street, leading from the city of Toronto to Simcoe. This company, controlled by Mr. Warren, having got a franchise for an electrice line on that road proposed to put an electric motor weighing about a hundred tons on the line to run up and down that street, which is a great thoroughfare for farmers and teamsters of all kinds. This is a road in which the constituents of my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace) and my own arei very much interested. We simply wanted to let our constituents know who are the men making the application and whether the construction of the road is now going on. I believe the work is ready to be undertaken and would like to ask the minister whether the plans have been approved of ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The plans have been sent back from here.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Approved ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know whether they were finally approved or not. I do not think the order in coucil has been passed.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: The subsidy will not apply until the plans were approved ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The extraordinary thing about this is that the resolution says that they may start to build a road any place between King and Newmarket. These two points are about twelve miles apart, and the railway which is allowed to start anywhere within twelve miles is to be fifteen Mr. BLAIR.
miles long. Now, the minister tells us that they have approved the location of the line. Then we want to know that location. Is it to start at King station, or at Aurora, or Newmarket, or some point between ?


Jabel Robinson: I think the subsidy for this electric road-it is an electric road is it not?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no information to that effect.


Jabel Robinson: This road runs through one of the best cultivated and most thickly settled sections of the county of York. And I think it is a shame for the Dominion of Canada to give a bonus to build a road through that country. I think the government does not thoroughly understand the question, or they would not be led into such a trap. They are laying themselves open to one of the greatest scandals in the country. If these people cannot build a road through that section and make it pay, they had better not have anything to do with railways. I will stay here all night before I would vote! this subsidy. I think it is a down right shame.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this an electric or a steam railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have heard to-night for the first time the suggestion that it is to be an electric road. We have never given a subsidy, and, so far as I am concerned, never will give a subsidy to aid the construction of a tramway or electric railway in this country. We have not done it, and it is not proposed to do it by this vote. If these people choose to construct an electric railway and run it by electricity, they will not get their subsidy, that is all.


Jabel Robinson: They will not need it, because it will run through an excellent country.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There are many railroads that are being projected through excellent sections of the country.


Jabel Robinson: And still they come here and try to pull the wool over your eyes.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: In the absence of the Postmaster General, on whose advice I know this railway had been recommended to the government for a subsidy, I beg to say that it does supply a portion of country that is without any railway communication. I believe it is fifteen or nineteen miles from any railway station where this road proposes to go, although it passes through the county of York, which is supposed to have great railway facilities. I know the Postmaster General has taken a great deal of interest in this road.
5553	,	MAY 18, 1901	5554


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The fact that the same company owns the electric railway that is running past Bond Bake up to Aurora, rather suggests the possibility or probability that they intend it to be the same kind of railway.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: Of course, they would not get the bonus if it was an electric railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They will get no subsidy for an electric railway. We are not going to open the door to such applications as that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From the reading of that letter it is suggested that they intend to build an electric railway. There is another thing about it. The resolution says it shall start from a point between King and Newmarket and run to Schomberg. That is not definite enough. It may be the township of King, which reaches within a few miles of Newmarket, or it may be King's Station, which is about ten miles from Newmarket. But, the fact that the corporators of this company are owners of the electric railway that extends from Toronto now to Aurora, suggests, as I have said, the probability that they intend to extend their electric railway that way.


Jabel Robinson: I move that the item granting 848.000 to build the Newmarket and Schomberg road be struck out of the estimates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Who
seconds it ?


Jabel Robinson: One of the York members will second it.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Railways and Canals says he is not going to open the door to give subsidies to roads run by electricity.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, tramways.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman said railroads. Only a few minutes ago we passed a charter for one of the most important roads in Canada, according to public opinion. The work on the Quebec Bridge and Terminal Railway Company is to be done by electricity, if I understood the Bill rightly. You give a bonus to the Quebec bridge. Mr. Booth, when he contemplated this road in the first place, intended to run it by electricity. I hope, in a short time, to see every railroad in Canada run by electricity, and there is no reason whatever why a bonus should not be given to such roads. I think the Railway Act contemplates roads run by electricity as well as by steam. But, certainly we have already passed an Act a few minutes ago giving power to run by electricity all the terminals for the different railroads that enter Quebec.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Quebec bridge may be worked by electricity, but it is not contemplated just now to do so. I do not know how it may be later. The time may come when cars on these railways may be run by electricity. But, what my hon. friend, the Minister of Railways and Canals, had in his mind was, these cheap tramways, when he said they should not be subsidized.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The government has always made a wide distinction between a tramway and a steam railway. Steam railways are allowed to bring their rails in free of duty, while tramways have to jjay duty on their rails. This subsidy is being voted on the assumption that it is a steam railway to be connected with the Grand Trunk Railway at a point between King and Newmarket.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What alarms me is the idea of saying that the parliament of Canada will be prepared to grant aid to anybody who constructs electric tramways all over this country, or street railways, or railways that are not of the ordinary character of steam railways, such as we have been subsidizing in the past. Perhaps the time may come when some particular undertaking which is to be run by electricity may have claims that parliament may judge wise to accede to.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Shall the resolution be adopted ?


Jabel Robinson: Are you going to rut my amendment ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: It is not an amendment.


Jabel Robinson: I have a right to utter my protest against this subsidy. I have moved an amendment, and if it is not in order I want to know it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend wants to have a division upon his amendment, he can call for a division. The question is put now. whether the item shall be carried or not. It is open to the hon. gentleman to ask a division upon it if he chooses.


Jabel Robinson: I will ask for a division. I think it is time we put a stop to this thing.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to, yeas 23, nays 4.
To the Restigouche and Western Railway, for its line of railway from Campbellton on the Intercolonial Railway, N.B., towards Grand Palls, in lieu of subsidy granted by 1897, chap. 4, sec. 2, par. 10, not exceeding twenty miles, $64,000.
John Graham Haggart: Is there any change in this, or is it. simply a revote ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: A renewal, word for word.

To the Pontiac Pacific Junction Railway Company, for thirty-six miles of its railway from a point at or near Shawville, crossing the Ottawa river via Calumet Island to Pembroke, including the bridging of both channels of the Ottawa river at Calumet Island, fourteen miles of which shall be in lieu of the unexpended balance of subsidy granted by 1897, chap. 4, sec. 3, par. 2, not exceeding $115,200.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Mr. Beemer submitted a statement of the subsidies that have been granted, and I understand he had a subsidy granted to the road last session or the session before. We granted him an alternate route which was thought to be in the public interest, and now he wants to transfer the subsidy to this thirty-six miles of road. He appears to be dissatisfied with the proposal of the hon. minister to apply the subsidy to two different lines, and asks us to grant him a subsidy for thirty-six miles, and, of course, the other will lapse if not built.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is allowing him the same amount of subsidy to be expended on the thirty-six miles of road.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, and if he does not build the other fourteen miles it will simply lapse.


Mr. MURRAY.: What is the suggestion of the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Mr. Beemer asks not to transfer the subsidy on the fourteen miles. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Murray) understands the location of the route.


Thomas Murray: Yes.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: He is not satisfied with the division of the subsidy, and I was suggesting to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to allow the subsidy for the thirty-six miles to be granted, and to allow the other on the fourteen miles to stand. Of course, if he does not build the fourteen miles the subsidy will lapse.


Thomas Murray: That is all right. He will have to have a special appropriation to bridge the river at Calumet Island next year, or the company cannot go on with the work.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) will see that this is extending the amount, and he must get the consent of the Governor to any increased grant.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: This does not increase the amount.


John Graham Haggart: One part of it is in the light of a grant which was granted before on the fourteen miles, and so you wish to transfer the subsidy on fourteen miles and leave the grant as it is. Therefore, it is an extension of the amount.


Andrew George Blair: 


Robert Franklin Sutherland: In that sense it is. He spoke to me about it very hurriedly.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let it stand.


John Graham Haggart: We have no objection if you make it correct.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Ctanals where the revote, or the vote, for the Lindsay, Bobcaygeon and Pontypool Railway is ? Has that lapsed yet ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think it has lapsed, but we have not had any evidence before us that these people are going on with this road. We have not had, it called to our attention that they were prepared to proceed. There is no use of encumbering our Subsidy Act with a renewal of subsidies when there is no reason to do so.


Samuel Hughes: I know the road has been started and that the right of way has been cleared for a great many miles.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That has been done for some time, and the work has been stopped.


Samuel Hughes: No, it was started this last winter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was some progress made two years ago.


Samuel Hughes: Not a stick was cut. There never was a move made until last winter.
To the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company, for its line of railway, from a point on its line of railway between Sudbury and Little Current, to its junction with the line of the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway, at or near Goulais River, in addition to and in further extension of its railway, subsidized by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, par. 6, an additional mileage, not exceeding 130 miles, $416,000.


John Graham Haggart: Now, I suppose the hon. member, as these are new subsidies, will put all the	correspondence on the
Table in reference to the whole of them.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. The hon. gentleman is in a great state of mind about the correspondence.


John Graham Haggart: We want to get it.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. He will be surprised to find how little correspondence there is.


John Graham Haggart: There may be some that is very interesting and we wish to see it.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. If his curiosity is stimulating his request, I am afraid he will be disappointed. He will find nothing that will be worth reading. I have not got in these

555S
papers all the correspondence that there Is. It is impossible to procure copies of all this correspondenec -without taking a great deal of time, and more time than it is possible for us to take. I have known a good many instances in which almost all the clerical staff of the department have been employed preparing papers, which, when brought down here, have never been looked at. It was not asked for, because any one wanted to look at it ; it was only asked for because hon. gentlemen wanted to have some pretext for claiming that the information was not furnished. The papers have been poured in upon them. Now, there is a very satisfactory and lucid map here showing the lino proposed of the Manitoulin Railway.
The Manitoulin and North Shore Railway has been the subject of a good deal of discussion lately. The project is to build a railway from Meaford, up the peninsula, across the strait, then to Sudbury, and across the eastern end of Lake Superior. The government of Ontario have taken up this project, I think with very much satisfaction to the people of the province, and Mr. Clergue and those associated with him have entered into it with a very great deal of vigour. I have no reason to doubt but that with the assistance that has bean given by the Ontario government, coupled with the assistance which we are proposing to give them, this company will have the road pushed through vigorously, and it will be immensely beneficial.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That portion of this railway between Meaford and Owen Sound will go through a section where there is no railway, and will be a valuable connection between the eastern and western railway systems. Prom Owen Sound to Wiarton there is a railway now operated by the Grand Trunk Railway. It seems to me that if they could manage to get the use of the track from Owen Sound to Wiarton, which is used comparatively little now, it would avoid the necessity of building a railroad there.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that will require to be built.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you not subsidized that portion of the road as well ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not included in this. There is nothing included to the south or east of Little Current.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From Wiarton to Col-poy's Bay is over the peninsula, and there is no road there at all. The great difficulty to be found will be to run the ferry across the channel, it is only seventeen miles wide and very deep, and exposed to westerly winds, and I am afraid it will be impossible to run a ferry across there. If that can be done, there is no doubt at all about the
usefulness of the railway and the value it will be to that part of Ontario, south and west of the Georgian Bay.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They can run those heavy icebreaking boats anywhere.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I should think the trouble will not be so much from ice as from rough water in storms. Although there is not a large percentage of eultivat-able lands on the Manitoulin Island, still it is well settled, and there is no doubt that the railway Will be very valuable.


Samuel Hughes: I understand there is no subsidy for the Manitoulin Island or on the peninsula, or in Grey county, between Meaford and Owen Sound.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not included in this present vote, but we have already given a subsidy from Little Current to Sudbury on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and this will supplement these former grants and make the line complete.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any subsidy in this from Wiarton to Colpoy's Bay ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not in this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you expect to build this railway without a subsidy !


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I dare say they will come back. They represented that 130 miles was as much as they could build, in addition to what they have already built, this season, and they simply get a subsidy for the work they believe they can do this year. The whole Algoma Central, which is part of the same system, is under contract now. There is part of the line subsidized before, so that the minister is quite right in saying that this would not complete the whole road through the peninsula, but it is in that direction. Under the contract with the provincial government, they are bound to build the whole road.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That does not comport with the statement made in the newspapers that they would commence at both ends. They must commence at Meaford as well as at Little Current. They may be able to avail themselves of the subsidy granted two years ago for a railroad from Meaford to Owen Sound, and if they make this connecting link this year it will be very valuable.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I understand that is what is contemplated.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Otherwise the towns on the south of the Georgian Bay would be deceived in signing that requisition and supporting it by a large deputation here, on the understanding that the railway would be started at both ends at the same time.


John Graham Haggart: If I understand aright, this road does not run to Wiarton at all. It runs from a point between Sudbury and Little Current, and connects with the road that runs northerly from Sault Ste. Marie. A great portion of this road must cost more than $15,000 per mile, but the government does not seem to have made provision for the payment of more than $3,200 a mile.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: All these sums of money mentioned in the margin will have to be struck out in the Bill. They are put there as a guide for the committee. The limit is not $3,200 per mile, but is fixed on the sliding scale which the hon. gentleman is familiar with. These sums of money are useful in enabling us to form an estimate of the cost, but they do not go in the Bill at all.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: All the subsidies and the revotes are subject to the provisions of the first section of the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there will be a good many people in the peninsula very much disappointed, because during the elections one of the arguments used against us was that the government were giving this subsidy to build a railway up the peninsula. When their minds are disabused of that impression, I am afraid they will be likely to have a different feeling towards the government, because there is no subsidy contemplated for building a mile of that road. What I think the Clergue company want is to build a road through their own lands and mines, and the Manitoulin part of the project may be left in abeyance to an indefinite time in the future.


John Graham Haggart: I do not understand the Minister of Finance yet. There is voted $3,200 a mile, and when the road costs over $15,000 a mile, one-half of the cost over that is to be added to the $3,200 a mile up to $6,400 a mile ; but then you have to get a specific amount recommended by the Governor General to this House. How is it possible to do it by the plan proposed by the Minister of Finance ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no difficulty, because the maximum sum would be $6,400 a mile. Of course, in five cases out of six it will not be used, and there is no use of indicating it ; but the resolutions give the minister power to make a grant up to $6,400 a mile, provided the road should be an expensive one. The first clause provides that.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The resolution proposes to vote $416,000, which may be $832,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Possibly.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: For as wild-cat a scheme as ever was proposed to this parliament. Years ago parties came to this parliament Mr. SPROULE.
for a subsidy for a railway, not just exactly on the line of this one, but in the same locality ; and Sir John Macdonald strongly took the ground, which is equally strong to-day, that if this road were going to improve the value of the timber lands and timber up there, which was the chief argument used, the applicants should go to the legislature of Ontario and to the lumbermen whose timber limits would be so largely increased in value. This country is one which we hear boomed a good deal now ; but anybody whoi has gone along the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway and has seen the character of the country it goes through knows that it will never amount to anything as a farming country except perhaps in some isolated spots. By going a little further on, settlers can get on the prairie lands of the North-west a farm ready to occupy and to put the plough in without a day's delay, and they will hardly be likely to spend a lifetime among the rocks and stones of this country, attempting to cut down the timber and clear the land and hew out a home in the wilderness, especially as all they get of the pine are the stumps, the lumbermen getting all the trees. I wish for one to enter my protest against the voting away of the money of the people of Canada on such schemes as this.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister any correspondence from the Ontario government in relation to these projects, or is this scheme really the Ontario government scheme fathered on the Minister of Railways and Canals, who seems to know very little about it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have had no communication with the Ontario ministry at all on the subject ; but I must confess that the whole subject has attracted a good deal of attention, probably owing to the active steps which the provincial government have taken in opening up New Ontario.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: My hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace) must know that we have something better than any communication from the Ontario government. We have the Act of the legislature, which, having looked into this matter, thought it well to give a considerable amount as encouragement to this company to go on and build.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From where ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Through the district through which this road is to run.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they give a subsidy for a line through the Manitoulin Island and the Bruce Peninsula ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes. My hon. friend must know that within the last two or three years there has been invested in mines and the getting out of pulp far more private capital than would build these roads.
55G1


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The money put in mines, outside of nickel and copper, will never be got out again. The hon. gentleman can buy the stock of these mining companies for a very small percentage of what was put into them.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am not prepared to speak as to that. I am not interested in any of them, directly or indirectly ; but the stock that cannot be purchased is held by large owners.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What kind of mines ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Nickel and copper. In addition to that, he knows that this is to develop large iron deposits in that district.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The nickel and the copper are the two kinds I excepted. I was referring to the other mines. The nickel and copper mines are in a very circumscribed area and are held by very few people.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: These are the arguments which we have all been in the habit of using since time immemorial in regard to the sections of the country that we know nothing about.
lous district, known as Isle Madame, which contains the shire town of Richmond county. That island is divided from the mainland of Cape Breton by a passage called Lennox passage. There is a probability of a line running on the south side of Cape Breton Island from Canso to St. Peters, at which point it will touch the canal connecting the ocean with the Bras d'Or lakes. That proposed line of railway will pass close to Grandigue Ferry. The people of Arichat, only eight or nine miles away, are anxious that the government should build a branch of the Intercolonial to that town, but we did not think that parliament would approve of adding branches to the Intercolonial Railway ; and as the next best thing this subsidy is proposed, in the expectation that the company, which is building a line in the vicinity, may be induced to build a branch of eight miles from the ferry into the shire town of Arichat.
To the Central Ontario Railway Company, for a further extension of its line of railway, subsidized by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, par. 5, northward to a junction with the Canada Atlantic Railway, at or near Whitney, Ont., not exceeding twenty miles, $64,000.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman may confess his own ignorance. It is not necessary for him to confess for anybody else in that regard.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I must admit my ignorance.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We will accept the confession.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If there is no objection, I will not take up any further time in explanations.


Mr. YROOMAN.: Before you pass to the next item, I would like more definite information in regard to the Lindsay, Bobcay-geon and Pontypool Railway, for which a subsidy was granted, I think, in the last session of the last parliament, or the session before that. I would like to know how that stands now, because the company were here this session to receive authority from this parliament to extend that road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman know when the construction of that railway was begun ?


Adam Edward Vrooman: They began that fall.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The subsidy was voted in 1899, and they would have two years after that to build it.
For a line of railway from Grandigue Ferry, N.S., to Arichat, not exceeding eight miles, $26,600.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On the south side of Cape Breton, there is a popu-


Samuel Hughes: Has this railway a charter ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Personally, like my hon. friend, I am not in favour of railway subsidies, but there are two principles that govern me in supporting these resolutions. The one is where the railways will open up a new country and develop agricultural, mineral or timber lands ; and, secondly, I would like to vote a subsidy to a company which has really shown itself in earnest. This company got into financial difficulties and the road fell into the hands of the bondholders, and has been controlled by them ever since. They applied for a subsidy in 1899 and got it on condition that they would build the twenty miles then subsidized. They have shown their good faith by investing their own private funds, in addition to what they have now in the enterprise, in completing these twenty miles, and I think that that line has passed the inspection of the government engineers, and they have drawn, or are in a position to draw, the subsidy. They say that they are prepared to go on and put their own funds into this road and extend it to a point on the Canada Atlantic. They also assure me that since the road has been under their control, it has more than paid running expenses. They have opened up the country and are drawing an immense quantity of ore, as they must do to make a long road like that pay. This connection with the Canada Atlantic will be of great advantage to that district. This is a very worthy enterprise, and in view of what the bondholders have done in the last two years, I think they are entitled to this subsidy.



COMMOXS

[Stage Direction]
To the Kingston and Pembroke Railway Company, tor a line of railway from a point at or near Sharbot Lake, Ont., via Lanark to Carleton Place, not exceeding forty-one miles, $131,200.
Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Is that to bring the Kingston and Pembroke road in the direction of the capital here ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: I would like to point out the need that exists for an air line from the capital to Kingston, or Napanee, or some other point on the Grand Trunk Railway. At present the connection between Ottawa and all southern and western Ontario is dependent on the Canadian Pacific Railway between here and Toronto, which only runs |two trains a day, and runs them at very low speed. I believe that the government, if they wish to make Ottawa more accessible, as it ought to be, to the people of southern and western Ontario, should give a subsidy of some kind for an air line from here to the Grand Trunk Railway. That is not in the interests of Toronto, but of the whole of southern Ontario, and all west and north of Toronto. We want to get the advantage of all those trains that the Grand Trunk Railway are now running between Montreal and the west. The Grand Trunk Railway Is running three or four expresses a day along that route, and the route is double tracked, and the best railway line in the country. It is high time that that splendid system was connected with Ottawa. Here is a subsidy which may help the Kingston and Pembroke road, but does not give connection between Ottawa and the Grand Trunk Railway. There is first-class connection between Montreal and the capital, but between Ottawa and southern and western Ontario there is a lack of railway communication, and I hope that the hon. minister will be prepared to treat in a liberal way a proposal to build from Ottawa, connecting with the Grand Trunk system. As it is, the means of getting from here to Brockville, Kingston, Napanee and Port Hope, and all those towns is very limited.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. member will be good enough to turn to item No. 6, he. will see that the line there subsidized brings him from Toronto to Ottawa by the shortest way. going through the beautiful town of Lindsay and the adjacent fine section of country. However, I would support also a project to have an outlet by Kingston. I must apologize for instructing the hon. member for East York in geography, but we have a fast line which will give us connection with Toronto over that road.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: My hon. friend is living in the moon. What I want is connection with the Grand Trunk Railway double track and its splendid system of connections east and west, which ought to be in direct touch with the capital, in the same way as Ottawa is now in direct touch with Montreal.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: We have not a first-class service between southern and western Ontario and Ottawa.


Samuel Hughes: That is the Very thing which is proposed by the vote to which I have referred. What is the traffic between Ottawa and Toronto over the Grand Trunk Railway ? They formerly had a sleeper from Toronto, but as there was only an odd passenger in it now and again, the company took it off. If one wants to come from Toronto to Ottawa by the Grand Trunk Railway, he has to hang around Brockville and get in here about ten o'clock in the morning. There has never been any great traffic on the Grand Trunk Railway for Ottawa. As I say, 1 am supporting this project, but I do not know that a few members of parliament and deputations coming to Ottawa during this session would support a irailway or pay for double tracking it to connect with the Grand Trunk Railway. I hope it may.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: What I am asking for, and the House seems to be seized of it, is to bring the city of Ottawa in touch with the splendid double-track system between Montreal, Toronto and the whole of western Ontario. It is not in touch with it now. There is a large traffic at present, and if it does not come by the Grand Trunk Railway it is because that road does not afford facilities. A straight line from here to Kingston will put this capital in connection with the Grand Trunk system.


Byron Moffatt Britton: For once, I agree in the main with my hon. friend for East York (Mr. Maclean) on this railway question. Two opportunities have been lost by the Grand Trunk Railway, one when they let the Ottawa and Prescott road go, which, I suppose, is the shortest line from Ottawa to the River St. Lawrence. It is run by the Canadian Pacific Railway mainly as a freight line, though there are passenger trains on it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is Toronto we want to reach.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I know it. The other opportunity lost by the Grand Trunk Railway was when the Kingston, Smith's Falls and Ottawa was left unbuilt. This road was heavily bonused, but, unfortunately, the financing got into the wrong hands, and the bonuses have lapsed. Under the old charter the road probably cannot be built. The time will come, and not very long hence I hope, when the wishes of my hon. friend will be realized by a short line connecting with the Grand Trunk Railway at Kingston. The proposal here is in that direction, though it is not what my hon. friend wants. It means the extension of the Kingston and Pembroke to Carleton Place, which, of course, is not very far from Ottawa. The new line will open up a section of country between Sharbot Lake and Carleton Place



IS, 1901

[Stage Direction]
of great value. There are valuable mineral deposits there, and a good deal of traffic will be obtained. There certainly is demand for this road, and I am glad there is no opposition in this House to it. *In the earlier part of the session, I had the pleasure of presenting petitions from the Kingston Board of Trade, Kingston city council, the corporation of the township of Bedford. Carleton Place sent a petition with 157 names of prominent men and business men there. These petitions stated the quantity of ore of different kinds that will be accessible to this line when it is built. I am sure the aid given to this road will be a good thing for the country.
John Graham Haggart: Will the minister give me the papers with regard to this grant?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: These are the original papers.


John Graham Haggart: Very well, the hon. minister can lay them on the Table.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will not lay them on the Table, but I will give them to the hon. gentleman.
To the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company, for a line of railway from Sault Ste. Marie to a point on the Canadian Pacific Railway at or near White River, in the district of Algoma, in extension of the subsidy granted to the Algoma Central Railway by 1899, chap. 8, sec. 2, par. 23, and by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, par. 4, a further additional mileage not exceeding 135 miles, $431,000.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: How much was previously voted to this road ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Subsidies were given on two occasions, in 1899, for forty miles, and in 1900, for fifty miles.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Over thirty miles of the road is completed, fifteen miles is ready all but the laying of the iron, and the rest is under contract to join the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: Is this the road to bring in ore from the Helen mine ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Who is the president of this road ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Unless it is Mr. Clergue, I do not know.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: And he is president also of the Manitoulin and North Shore ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I do not know.
Mr.	WALLACE.	Both of these	roads
are owned by the Clergue syndicate.
I This session we passed a Bill giving the power to amalgamate under a new name.
| We voted $416,000 to the Manitoulin and North Shore, and now we are voting $431,000 to the Clergue under this name. And the probability is that we are really voting twice these amounts. I see we are voting subsidies of $1,690,000 altogether for various railways to be constructed by this Clergue syndicate. Any one who takes a look at this map and sees the location of these lines of railways and the magnificent advertisements that are put all over it- ' silver, pine, spruce, copper, iron, &c.,' will recognize at once that this is got up by the boomers themselves. These votes are totally unjustifiable. There is some occult influence, some sinister influence behind the votes that are being asked for by the government, these enormous sums of money to which the government desire to pledge the credit of Canada, for the purpose of enriching millionaire lumbermen and holders of timber limits, without procuring any substantial benefit to the people of Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Why are such large grants asked in one year ? It is impossible for Mr. Clergue or any syndicate to construct one-quarter of the line which is laid down, within two years.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am sorry my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace) takes such a pessimistic view of the resources of Ontario, which have shown up so well for the last two or three years under the stimulus of this syndicate. Any one knows that before they can draw this money they will have spent four or five million dollars in railway enterprises out of their own capital. They do not draw these subsidies until they build the roads, and until the roads have passed the inspection of the government engineer. With regard to the enterprises that are going on there at present, these gentlemen are men of large wealth and experience.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Experience in what ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Experience in making money and developing the country. Every person knows that the gentlemen connected with that syndicate-


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Does the minister know that ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I know that those who are furnishing the money in the Clergue syndicate are gentlemen in Philadelphia who are well known, not only over the whole American continent but in Europe, as the most successful men in the United States, multi-millionaires.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Who are they ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I will be pleased to furnish the names if the hon.

gentleman will give me a claance. I have not got them at hand, and I would not like to use any person's name without authority. But every member of this House who has taken an interest in this matter knows that several million dollars must have been spent, and is now being spent, in developing the resources of that country outside the building of railways altogether. They are satisfied with their investments so far, and are going on further. I do not know of any section of country where greater development has taken place. They are giving employment to great numbers of our people. They have great enterprises at Sault Ste. Marie where they have established iron smelters, and in the district near the iron mines, and it would be impossible to carry on these large enterprises without considerable railway building. They are not asking for anything until after they have made large investments of their own money, they have already invested $100 for every dollar they ask from this parliament.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Would the minister tell us what aid they get from the Ontario government ?	[DOT]


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not like to speak without the exact figures before me, but I understand that in return for a grant of land and some cash subsidies, they are to place upon those lands that they are opening up for agricultural purposes a thousand settlers per year.


Mr.   M A CLEAN@: I think it is 10,000.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think every member of this committee will agree that if, in addition to developing these iron, pulp and manufacturing industries in that district. they will put a thousand heads of families on agricultural lands in that district according to their contract with the Ontario government, we need not begrudge the usual aid to that company. For my part X would not support giving a dollar of subsidy to this company until I was satisfied from their own books that they had invested over $5,000,000. They said : We are not going to ask for any subsidy until we have built the road and shown you that we are putting our own money into_ it.
As I understand it, they are not borrowing this money from the public, they have not issued a bond and they do not ask any person in Canada, or out of it, to subscribe for the stock so that they are not asking the public to join with them in the undertaking. They are putting up their own money in developing these various industries that are doing so much good in this section of the country and they are asking us for the usual assistance for a railway enterprise. The part of the Algoma Central that they have already completed is the best piece of road in the Dominion of Canada, or at least, they assert the best in the province


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Here is the part of it that I cannot understand. I notice in the local Act that it is practically an electric railway, and the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals has said that he is not prepared to give any subsidy to an electric railway. The Act says that the charter for a railway in the counties of Grey and Bruce is issued for an electric railway.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: This road does not run there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It covers the same ground, the same parties are interested in it and it must be one and the same road. They have power to run through Manitoulin Island and north-east of that and they have power, according to the local Act, to make it a railway which may be run by electricity. According to the Act respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company it may be run either by electricity or steam.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Railway Act provides for that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But this is a special Act. I know that the Railway Act provides for the use of steam or electricity for operating the road. It provides that the clause of the Railway Act which refers to electric railways shall apply to this road. The Railway Act is not applicable to it except in the counties of Grey and Bruce. It is for the portion of the road in the counties of Grey and Bruce that this House grants the subsidy.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think that since that legislation has been obtained the promoters have obtained a Dominion Act ol' Incorporation, and if the hon. gentleman will remember, we put in a special clause declaring that anything in any provincial Acts would not be confirmed which was inconsistent with the general Railway Act of Canada. All these roads are under the Dominion Railway Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Here is a feature that strikes me. The provincial Act provides for an electric railway and upon the strength of that they get 7,400 acres of land per mile. Now, the Dominion gives a charter over the same ground and we give a subsidy. How are we going to make the two work out together ? Which Act are they going to work under ? . If it is the local Act then the enterprise draws the local subsidy, but if not, it draws the Dominion subsidy and it cannot

draw the local subsidy as well. It is impossible for both the Dominion and the province to give subsidies, or is the company to have one under the provincial charter and another under the Dominion charter ?
_ Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND. We are granting a subsidy to a Dominion road.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman said a few moments ago, when I contended that it was not likely that these parties would be able to build this road for this amount, that they would have the provincial subsidy as well.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: They have to make their contract and I suppose the provincial government must make their contract with this company. It it now a Dominion company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the Dominion give the subsidy ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It might not give it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We want to know from the bon. Minister of Railways and Canals what subsidies are given by Ontario to this road ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not find that my memorandum contains a note of the amounts of the subsidies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is 7,400 acres of land per mile in blocks, to the Algoma Central Railway Company.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is right, but there is a condition attached that the company shall put so many settlers into the country.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Are they to get something else besides the 7,400 acres of land per mile ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would not like to say ; I have sent for the Bill.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is the whole business of the country to stop because we cannot get information ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, go on with the other resolutions.
For a line of railway from Bridgetown, Nova Scotia, to Middleton, in extension of the line subsidized by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, par. 28, not exceeding eleven miles, $35,200.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have already subsidized a road from Bridgetown in Annapolis to Victoria Beach on the Bay of Fundy. This is for an extension of 11 miles which will bring it to a point of junction where it will meet the Nova Scotia Central road. Middleton is quite an important point and is likely to become a railway centre, and instead of making the connection at Bridgetown the desire is to 175
bring it to a point of junction where it will have connection with several roads.


Mr. KAULBACH.: Will this proposed road be on the north side of the Annapolis river ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The general line runs on the north side of the river, but whether this particular piece is on the north side I am not sure.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Yes, it runs on the north side of the Annapolis river and on the north side of Annapolis Basin to Victoria Beach.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: At what point will it intersect the Dominion Atlantic ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: It will intersect the Dominion Atlantic at Middleton and join the Nova Scotia Central at Middleton.
For a line of railway from a point on the Grand Trunk Railway at or near Burk's Falls, Ont., to the Maganetawan river, not exceeding two miles, $6,400.


John Graham Haggart: What is the object of the two miles ?


Mr. McCORMICK.: I may say that this is a very important connection between the railway line and navigation on the Maganetawan river. At the present time some 15,000 people live down the Maganetawan river, and their only means of communication with the railway is by navigation to Burk's Falls. When they get to Burk's Falls they have two miles of very rough road to get over to reach the railway, and all the goods coming in and out have now to be carried by wagon from the railway to the boat. This expenditure of $6,400 will accommodate not less than 15,000 people.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the Ontario government has given them $10,000.


George McCormick: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: How much will it take to build it ?


George McCormick: It is a very expensive branch to build, because there are two bridges to be built across the Maganetawan river.


John Graham Haggart: Carried.
For a line of railway between Halifax and the Central Railway, Nova Scotia, from the end of the 40th miles from Halifax, subsidized by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, par. 40, to a junction with the Central Railway, Nova Scotia, not exceeding thirty miles, $96,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a part of the through line from Halifax to Yarmouth by the South Shore to which reference was made this afternoon. It has been subsidized in sections for the greater part of the road from Halifax to the Nova Scotia Central, which crosses the province between the Bay of Fundy to the Atlantic, is about seventy miles. Two sections



of twenty miles each have already been subsidized. It will run through the county of Halifax, through a portion of the county of Lunenburg, and then connect with the Nova Scotia Central at some convenient point. The particular point of junction is not designated, but the distance between Halifax and the Central will be about 70 miles. With the two sections of twenty miles each, this will about fill in the link.
I think in these various subsidies, covering a period of years, we have a sufficient mileage to build the whole line from Halifax to Yarmouth. The line is regarded as of such importance that the local government have undertaken a policy which has been commended by some hon. members in this House. They have undertaken to loan the company on the whole mileage $10,000 per mile, and take a first mortgage for it. I am not sure but that they may find it necessary to grant some further help. With the money so loaned and the Dominion subsidies, it is hoped that this 200 miles lrom Halifax to Yarmouth will be built at a very early date. This tills in one of the missing links.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I feel it my duty to offer a word or two in reference to this subsidy. Let me refer to a road that has been commenced, and all of the work completed except laying the rails between New Germany and Caledonia on the way to Shelburne ; a road which is most essential to develop the resources of the interior of the country. This is a road that any person would view with satisfaction and consider that the money appropriated and the portion expended on it was commendable and prudent. That road at present stops at New Germany, and some weeks ago I made an appeal to the government in this House to extend that road between Shelburne and New Germany, on which already heavy bridges have been built of the very best material, with dressed stone culverts, the substructure of the bridges from the base to the top of the piers being of the very best material also. I ask that that road from Shelburne to New Germany should be extended to Halifax, as it passes through a section of country that cannot be excelled in any part of the Dominion. The land between New Germany and New Ross is superior to most other lands in the province. This section is now very sparsely settled, simply because the people in that remote district have no opportunity of getting their produce to the market. If the road were extended from New Germany to Halifax it would afford a market either at Halifax or at Boston, via Shelburne by a line of steamers. In consequence of the local government not being in sufficient funds to maintain the roads, these people are now unable to get their products to the market.


Samuel Hughes: Have they no means of communication now ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Only over a very rough road. They are in a measure isolated. If this railway were built as I suggest from New Germany to Foster Settlement and New Ross, to Halifax it would really be an international road, as by a line of steamers from Shelburne to Boston it would be the shortest route by five miles for tourists and others from Halifax to Boston. The road for which we voted a subsidy can be built and those living along the St. Margaret's Bay can be accommodated as well by this road as by the road at present proposed. I am not opposing the shore road by any means, but I say it will not suit all these poor people in the interior who are now suffering for want of communication. This road can follow the head waters of St. Margaret's Bay connecting Hubbard's Cove, Chester, and Chester Basin, and then proceed by the valley of the Gold River to New Ross.


Fletcher Bath Wade: How would it connect with Chester ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Just one moment, please. Thence could go on through New Ross and through Foster Settlement to New Germany and thence to Shelburne. A portion of that road will go through a most fertile belt of land in the constituency of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, Northern Queen's, Brookfield and Caledonia. I ask in all sincerity that the government should view this matter in a fair and impartial light, and grant that subsidy which is so justly due to the people occupying those remote sections of the country. My personal advantage would be to see the road on the Shore, as I reside on the Shore, and the population is mostly on the Shore, but I want to see the country developed. This could be made a sort of colonization road which would keep the people in the country, so that they might have an opportunity of living at home instead of being expatriated from Canada. I go further and say that these people are entitled to this road for the reason that the eastern portion of the province is eared for by the government; all the roads there are supported by government money, they being government railways. These people for whom I speak are contributing very largely of their means to the support of the railways in eastern Nova Scotia, and west of Halifax should reap some benefit as well as those in the east. I feel that the government, guided by a sense of justice, will make the road I refer to an international route, and take it over as a government work. It will open up a direct communication from Halifax to Shelburne via New Ross, Foster Settlement, New Germany. Pleasant River and Caledonia, and by tap lines at intervals to the sea will give the settlers I refer to and those on the shore all the conveniences required.

Mr, WADE. I shall have to ask to be allowed to say a word in this connection, after the remarks made by the hon. member for Lunenburg. I entirely disagree with him, except as he speaks of the importance of New Germany and New Ross. I know those sections very well, and I would be glad to see them have the advantage of a railway. There is only one way, however, for them to get it, that is, from the Central Railway at New Germany, to the Midland at Windsor. The hon. gentleman wishes to apply the subsidy to a road running through the sparsely settled portion of the province. The road he speaks of would have to run back of Hubbard's Cove, which Is the collecting point for the eastern part of St. Margaret's Bay, and run about twelve miles back of Chester, the Saratoga of Nova Scotia. From there it would pass through a comparatively uninhabited country, a very difficult country in which to build a road, until it reached within twelve or fifteen miles of the Central Railway. [DOT]The other night, when the question of cold storage was up, the hon. gentleman asked the government to provide cold storage ears for the shipment of fish from the county of Lunenburg, which is a very important fishing county, as well as the counties of Queen's and Shelburne ; and one of the important industries served by this road will be the transport of fresh fish from the shores of those counties. After advocating refrigerator cars for that purpose, he now asks that this road shall not be built near the shore where the people are. but back in the country. I dissent from that view entirely. In addition to the towns, there is Ghester Basin, which could not be served except by a branch. Then, there is Gold River, Western Shore, Mahone Bay, Lunenburg and Bridgewater, all of which places the hon. gentleman wishes us to leave, and put the road. back in the interior. I contend that that would be most disastrous, and there would be a general outcry in the country if any such attempt were made.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: My hon. friend knows right well that Bridgewater. Mahone Bay. and Lunenburg have communication with the Central Railway ; and the cold storage system and fish that could be gathered along the shore could be done satisfactorily at these places. I omitted to mention that for this entire road from Shelburne to Halifax, I do not think that one dollar would be required to be paid for right of way. So far as I am aware-and I am instructed to say so-through the most fertile belt of Queen's and Lunenburg counties, every one of the landholders is willing to give the right of way free, whereas the route along the shore will probably place us in the position of being taxed to a very great extent for the right of way. We have had experience of that in the case of the Central Railway, for which we were unduly taxed, and which 175}
will be a halter around our necks for a long time. Beside, if this road is to follow the windings and indentations of the coast between Halifax and Shelburne, it will be almost one-third longer than it would be by the route I suggest.


Fletcher Bath Wade: On the contrary, it will be shorter.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: My hon. friend speaks of Hubbard's Cove. Let me tell him the route I suggest will give direct communication with the head waters of St. Margaret's Bay and take in Huibbard's Cove, and connect with Chester and Chester Basin, and take the valley of Gold River, and proceed thence to New Ross.


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is impossible.
Mr.. KAULBACH. Then, from this belt line down to the coast no part will be more than 18 miles, and some of these places would have direct communication, they being on the belt line. While I do not object to the shore line, I do object to those people back in the woods being allowed to remain there without railway communication, and being told that they have to be satisfied with their situation as they find it or get out1 of the country. I think it is an injustice.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman wants two lines through Lunenburg ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I would be satisfied with two lines rather than see those people kept out in the cold.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: So would any man in this House or out of it if he could get them. I am happy to get one.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Is the hon. gentleman not getting two-one known as the government road, and one voted to-day ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Not at all, except at Port Mulgrave, where two lines run through a corner of the county.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The hon. gentleman knows that the road subsidized to-day almost parallels the Intercolonial.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Excuse me ; it leaves the Intercolonial, and when it reaches Country Harbour it will be fifty or sixty miles from it.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The hon. gentleman might have asked for one of these roads when his party was in power.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I did ask for the road from New Germany to Shelburne, and the subsidy was voted and construction done.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My constituents are interested in this railway, and I agree with the hon. gentleman that I would rather have two roads in my constituency

than not have any ; hut I do not expect to get two roads in a hurry, and X shall he very glad to get one. If the hon. gentleman takes a rule and applies it to the map, he will find that from Halifax to the Central Railway, running near New Germany, is about seventy miles which is the subsidy we have provided for this section. At the same time, if the companies propose to consolidate these various sections into one through line, prefer to keep to the shore instead of going inland, X am bound to say that I would rather see a road on the shore than none at all. We do not propose to tie ourselves up to a route in either direction, but leave that to be decided by the companies on commercial grounds. I hope soon to see a road built to New Germany and run south through Queen's county, and I have no doubt that will be taken up to some extent by the new enterprise. In the meantime, we are glad to get one road, and the second one will come in due course.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: But my hon. friend will see that a road from Halifax through New Germany, North Brookfield and Caledonia to Shelburne, will give us a direct route ; and it would be much more useful to the public than the other route. Surely, my hon. friend is not in a position to say that that road can be built, and be as useful for the public generally as the road I suggest from Caledonia, through to Shelburne.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The road from New Germany to Shelburne is under contract at this moment, but the company is not able to carry on the work.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: By this you will he shutting them out.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I am not.
For a line of railway from a point on the Algoma branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, at or near Bruce Lake Station northerly, to a point at or near Rock Lake, in the district of Algoma, not exceeding nine miles, $28,800.


Samuel Hughes: Where is Rock Lake ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is nine or ten miles north of Bruce station.


John Graham Haggart: Who is asking for this ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Two copper mine companies, which, I understand, are very prosperous, and employ a great many men.
For a line of railway from Roberval, Quebec, westward toward James Bay, not exceeding sixty miles, $192,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There are several large rivers falling from the north and west into Lake St. John. All these rivers make very fertile valleys into which


William Stevens Fielding: colonists are rapidly going, and the object is to project this railway from Roberval, which is the extreme point of the Lake St. John road, towards James Bay, in the valley of the river.
For a line of railway from a point upon the Stonewall branch or the Selkirk branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway to Icelandic River by way of Gimli, not exceeding thirty-five miles, $112,000.


Mr. McCREARY.: This is an extension of the Selkirk branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway nuns to West Selkirk, and last year that company built a branch from West Selkirk to tap the south end of Lake Winnipeg for the purpose of establishing a summer resort. This railway will run from the end of that branch up to where six or seven thousand Icelanders have settled. It will be thirty-five miles long, and run through a rich well-wooded country, and enable the settlers to clear up their lands. The local government of Manitoba have had, through their agent, five Icelander delegates from North Dakota, go up there to inspect the lands, and as the result we will have 4,000 or 5,000 people from North Dakota to settle in that district at a very early date.


Mr. MONK.: Is it the Canadian Pacific Railway that will build it ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: What kind of timber ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Spruce, tamarack and white birch.
On section 4,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This section has been found to be necessary by reason of the terms of this grant under the previous Act. When they came to construct their line, they found it would be very much more advantageous not only for the undertaking but in the public interest that, instead of building a new line they should utilize a considerable portion of the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, running their railway from Little Current up the Canadian Pacific Railway at one end and running the Sudbury end from the Canadian Pacific Railway, dividing the 66 miles into, we will say, 30 miles on one end and 36 miles on the other. I believe that with this change there will be a saving of some 7 miles.


John Graham Haggart: The two terminals are not the same.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, they are the same. But they are practically two branch lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway, as it stands now, I would like to change the mileage of the

first from 34 miles to 35 miles and the second from 32 miles to 31 miles. This makes the distance the same, a mile being taken off in one case and added on in the other.


John Graham Haggart: There are no changes in the other clauses ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The rest of the resolutions are identical with last year's resolutions.
Resolutions reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 146) to authorize the granting of subsidies in aid of the construction of the lines of railways therein mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 147) further to amend the Northwest Territories Representation Act.-Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Bill (No. 148) further to amend the Criminal Code, 1892.-Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 20, 1901.