1901-04-17

Mr. LEIGHTON G. MCCARTHY (North Simcoe) moved :: That the petition of the Western Assurance Company, presented this day, praying the House to suspend all rules and formal notices regarding a Bill to be introduced granting to the said company power to own, equip, maintain, operate and navigate on the lakes and rivers of Canada ice-breakers and wreck-relieving steamers and other appliances for ice-breaking and wreck-relieving, and to subscribe for, purchase and hold stock or shares in any company incorporated for the purpose solely or amongst other things of owning, equipping, maintaining, operating and navigating on the lakes and rivers of Canada, ice-breakers and wreck-relieving steamers or other appliances for ice-breaking or wreck-relieving, notwithstanding the expiration of the time for presentiing petitions for private Bills, be read and received and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.
He said : This motion is rendered necessary by reason of the fact that a Bill has passed through the House, giving power to another marine insurance company to own. equip and maintain a wrecking plant. At the time that Bill was being discussed, the Minister of Finance stated that the Western Assurance Company and the British America Assurance Company, if they applied to the House, would be granted a like privilege. When asked if it could be got through this session, it was understood that it could, saving all just exceptions, I suppose. Of course, I am aware that the time has expired for the introduction of private Bills, but the reason I have given is the reason why this application was not made earlier.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Although we have enforced the rule more firmly this session than ever, that we should not allow any extension of the time for presenting petitions for private legislation, yet, the reason which has been given by my hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy) seems to justify a departure from the rule on the present occasion. The reason which he gives is, that this legislation has been rendered necessary in consequence of legislation which passed this session. That is to say, we are likely to incorporate an insurance company, to which we give the power of having a wrecking apparatus, and I understand the object of this petition is to allow similar privileges to other companies. There can be no objection to that.


Mr. MACLEAN.: To all companies ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: To those companies who ask for it.


Mr. TARTE.: 


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Perhaps it would be better to deal with this by a general Bill, giving all such companies powers to the same extent as were given to the St. Lawrence Lloyds Insurance Company.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The suggestion may be a good one, but if the Bill is referred to the committee, the point suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) would he considered, and, perhaps, the consideration would result in what he suggests being done.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not oppose. under the circumstances, the Bill going to the committee, but I would like to mention to the right lion, gentleman that when the St. Lawrence Lloyds Bill was before the committee, w'liat I am now suggesting was pointed out to the Minister of Finance as the proper course to adopt. I am bound to say that I have not seen anything since which would change my mind in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Leighton Goldie McCarthy: That the petition of the British America Assurance Company, presented this day, praying the House to suspend ail rules and formal notices regarding a Bill to be introduced granting to the said company power to own,' equip, maintain, operate and navigate on the lakes and rivers of | Canada ice-breaker and wreck-relieving steamers and other appliances for ice-breaking and wreck-relieving, and to subscribe for, purchase and hold stock or shares in any company incorporated for the purpose solely or amongst other things of owning, equipping, maintaining, operating and navigating on the lakes and rivers of Canada, ice-breakers and wreck-relieving steamers or other pppliances for ice-breaking or wreck-relieving, notwithstanding the expiration of the time for presenting petitions for private Bills, be read and received and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Hon. Sir J. A. Boyd and the Hon. Mi-. Justice MacMahon, two of the judges selected for the trial of election (petitions, pursuant to the Controverted Elections Act. a certificate relating to the electoral district of Nipissing, by which the election petition was dismissed.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. LEMIEUX asked :: 1.	How many times did the rural district judges of the province of Quebec hold court at the city
of Montreal between 1st January, 1900, and 1st January, 1901?
2.	What is the number of writs issued by the Superior Court at Montreal between 1st January, 1900, and 1st January, 1901?
3.	What is the number of writs issued by the Superior Court in all the other districts of the province of Quebec within the said period?
4.	What is the number of judgments rendered in the Superior Court at Montreal from 1st January, 1900, to 1st January, 1901?
5.	What is the number of judgments rendered by the Superior Court in the other districts of the province of Quebec during the said period?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I will ask my hon. friend to allow this question to drop. We have asked for the information from the different districts, but it will take some time to get it. As soon as we receive it, I will bring it to the House.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I hear that the remedy will be soon given.



RESERVED BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRUNEAU-by Mr. Britton-asked :
Since the year 18C7, how many Bills have been reserved by the Governor General for the signification of the Queen's pleasure, in pursuance of section 55 of the British North America Act?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Eighteen.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSIONER'S EXPENSES.

[Stage Direction]
.Mr. MONK asked :
1.	What is the amount allowed to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners for attendance at meetings?
2.	What is the total amount paid to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners for such attendance during the past year?
3.	What is the total amount expended by the Montreal Harbour Commissioners during the past year for travelling and other expenses?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: Application has been made to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal for the information the hon. gentleman asks for, but it has not yet been received.



EXCHEQUER COURT BUSINESS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FORTIN-by Mr. Lemieux-asked :
1.	How many cases have been brought before the Exchequer Court for the years 1896, 1897, 1898. 1899 and 1900 ?
2.	How many of those cases came from the province of Quebec ?
3.	How many of the latter have been tried before a referee?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	1890, 35; 1897, 49; 1898, 37; 1S99, 46; 1900. 36.
2.	1896. 11; 1897, 15; 189S, 11; 1899, 26; 1900, 14.

3.	1806, 1; 1897, 1; 189S, 3; 1S99, 2; 1900, 2.
In 1896 one case was referred to the acting registrar of the court at Quebec for inquiry and report.
In 1897, in one case, after trial before the judge of the court, there was a reference to the registrar and two experts to assess damages.
In 1898, in one case, there was a reference to the registrar of the court for inquiry and report. A second case was referred to him and two others, but was settled out of court. A third was referred to the local judge of the court for the Quebec admiralty district.
In 1899, there were two references to the local judge, but these have not as yet been proceeded with.
In 1900, one case was referred tto the local judge and one to the registrar of the court, but neither as yet completed.



MAIL SERVICE FROM COE HILL MINES TO APSLEY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CARSCALLEN-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
Who is the contractor for carrying the mails from Coe Hill Mines to Apsley?
When was the contract awarded?
What was the date of the last tender received and date received at the department?
If the contract is not yet awarded, who is performing the service and under what condition and terms?
Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND.: A question similar to this, word for word, was answered on Monday last. The hon. gentleman will find all the information in ' Hansard ' of that date.



WILLIAMSBURG CANAL SUPERINTENDENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRODER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What are the duties and salary of the newly-appointed superintendent of the Williamsburg canal?
2.	What will, comprise the district or length of canal under his control?
3.	Will he reside at Morrisburg?
4.	What is the name of the person appointed?
5.	What was his vocation or business prior to his appointment?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In the absence of the Minister of Railways, I beg to reply :
1.	Superintendent Stewart's duties tfre to take charge of the operating staff of the St. Lawrence canals, and see that they perform heir duties satisfactorily and faithfully. His salary is $125 a month.
2.	The district comprises the Cornwall, Farran's Point, Rapide Plat, Galops and Murray canals.
3.	He will reside in Morrisburg.
4.	W. A. Stewart.



I.C.R.-MR. G. R. JOUGHINS.

Mr. GAUYREAU asked :: 1.	What is the salary of Mr. G. R. Joughins, superintendent of the mechanical department of the Intercolonial Railway at Moncton?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 2.	Was that gentleman absent from his post, for a trip to Europe, in 1899 and 1900?
3.	If so, had he obtained leave of absence, and for what period?
4.	Was he employed on a special mission, and if so, what was its nature?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) :
1.	Mr. Joughins' salary is $312.50 a month.
2.	Yes, he was absent on a trip to Europe in 1900.
3.	Yes, he obtained leave of absence from the 11th of August to October 1st.
4.	It was considered to be in the interest of the railway that he should see the latest improvements in railway appliances which were to be seen at the exhibition.



I.C.R.-WILLIAM L. PRINCE.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Is William L. Prince employed by the Department of Railways and Canals at Moncton?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	What is the nature of the work he is employed at?
4.	How often has Prince been absent from work during the past six months?
5.	Does he draw his full salary regularly?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). I think the hon. gentleman will find that that question was answered some days ago. If the information is in any way defective, I shall be glad to supplement it.



GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND FAIR WAGES.

Mr. PUTTEE asked :: 1.	How many claims are on hand and undetermined, based on the fair wages clause in contracts and laid by workmen?
2.	At what date were the oldest of these claims first filed?
3.	Does the determining of these claims rest with the fair wage officers of the Department of Labour?
4.	What course will be pursued with contractors who persistently refuse to be governed by the terms of their contracts? Will the government pay the good claims and deduct the amount from contract price? Will the contracts be nullified, and will such contractors be debarred from tendering in future?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	Eight.
2.	October 17th, 1900.
3.	The determining of these claims rests with the minister of the department to which the contract belongs. The fair wage officers of the Department of Labour investigate these claims and submit their report for the consideration of the minister to whose department the contract belongs.
4.	' In the event of default being made in paying of any money owing in respect of wages of any foreman, workman or labourer, employed on the said work, and if a claim therefor is filed in the office of the minister and proof thereof satisfactory to the

minister is furnished, the said minister may pay such claim out of any moneys at any time payable by Her Majesty under said contract and the amounts so paid shall be deemed payments to the contractor.'



SUPPLY-THE TRANSPORTATION QUESTION.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding! moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
Mr ROBERT BICKER-DIKE (St. Lawrence, Montreal). Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into committee, 1 desire to apologize for once more bringing np the question of transportation; but it is a question of great importance to the commercial people of this country, and I do not think that it has received the attention from this House to which it is entitled. I certainly would not have reverted to the subject again were it not that some lion, members who have spoken on it, have conveyed the impression that Mont-treal has become a port of the past. One of the statements made in that connection has been that the Grand Trunk Railway lias forsaken Montreal, and is building up the foreign port of Portland as its terminus. It is perfectly true, Mr. Speaker, that the Grand Trunk Railway has, for a time at least, forsaken the port of Montreal.
I have a motion on the paper on that subject, which it is evident will not be reached this session, and which I cannot refer to ; but when the papers which I asked for are brought down, as 1 have no doubt the Minister of Public Works will bring them down, they will prove that the port of Montreal has never had a single dollar of government money spent upon it. They will prove that every port and harbour of it,he Dominion of Canada, from Esquimau to Point Clare, and from Halifax to Oaugh-nawaga, has receivod amounts of money for harbour improvements, both from former governments and from this government. But up to the present time-and I challenge successful contradiction of this statement- not a single dollar has been spent on the harbour proper of the city of Montreal. It is true, the government in the past has guaranteed the bonds of the Harbour Commission of Montreal, on which we pay interest, and the Auditor General's Report will prove that every time that interest becomes due the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal pay regularly and to the date. Now. Sir. the reason given by the Grand Trunk Railway for abandoning Montreal for a foreign port'is the lack of terminal facilities at Montreal. This reason is not serious. Had the Grand Trunk Railway spent on improving their terminals in Montreal, the monev tliev have expended on the harbour of Portland, their Montreal terminals would be far superior to those in Portland. It is evident that there is an attempt to-day to
make Portland the port of Canada. Although the Grand Trunk Railway has been receiving large subsidies and bonuses from different Canadian municipalities and very large concessions in the city of Montreal, it suddenly decided to take its terminals away from that city and establish them in Portland, and it would be very interesting to know how much of the public money this country has indirectly contributed to the improving of that American harbour.
I have to ask the indulgence of the House, as I once more go over the ground in order to point out what our commercial community believes is required to make the St. Lawrence route as safe as any of the other routes and the approaches on the St. Lawrence equal to those of the American ports. This matter which, of course, has already been presented to the several ministers, will not be new to them, and therefore I do not propose to go into all the details, but it will be necessary for me to touch on some of the principal points in order to show why our commercial community is unanimous in demanding that this government make permanent improvements to our national route, and make them without any further delay, for if this country is ever to take the place to which it is entitled among commercial nations, we will have to give the St. Lawrence route that amount of protection which will enable steamships to utilize it as cheaply and as safely as they can our rival routes. But in doing this, I shall endeavour not to detain the House any longer than possible, because I know there are quite a number of other members who wish to give their views on the subject.
Before I became a candidate for a seat in this House, I pledged myself that in introducing the transportation question to the attention of hon. members, I would endeavour to submit evidence in favour of the improvements desired, which would be incontrovertible. At a great expense the commercial bodies of Montreal, steamship companies, and the marine underwriters, undertook an examination of the different captains and pilots who are employed on the St. Lawrence route. We examined some thirty-three captains, taken from all sections of the coast, from the entrance of the Gulf to Montreal, and also examined the pilots, as both these classes of men are those most likely to be in a position to give accurate and authentic information.
The evidence taken has been submitted to each member of the government and the two leaders of the opposition, and in this evidence, taken before the Board of Trade of Montreal, the whole question has been threshed out in a most complete manner. A synopsis of the evidence has been furnished every member of this House with a chart, showing the different points where lights are required or where we wish the old lights to be removed and replaced by new ones, and also showing every sand bar
cmnvro'Nrs
that requires to be dredged and every rock that requires to be taken up, along the whole route of the St. Lawrence to Montreal.
Let me first inform the House bow that Inquiry came about. Those who are most directly interested in the navigation of the St. Lawrence began a series of examinations during last October. We did not select any particular captain or the captains of any particular line, but took the captains of steamers just as they came into port. We sent down for each captain, had him examined by Mr. Meredith, one of the leading lawyers in Montreal, and his evidence taken down in shorthand. As was explained at the first meeting in October by the chairman, the object of the inquiry was to procure the opinion of shipping masters on the requirements necessary in order to improve the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and to press tiie matter on the attention of the Dominion government so as to secure these improvements and bring about a reduction in the marine insurance rates, which is to-day an absolute necessity. The people who brought about the investigation and conducted the inquiry are those most largely interested in the St. Lawrence route, and most interested in impressing on the government the necessity of making the requisite improvements in that route in the interests, not only of the shipping, but of the whole trade ot' Canada. To show the importance of this question, let me point out that Manitoba annually exports 58.000,000 bushels of grain to Great Britain, and that out of (this quantity less than 14 per cent goes by way of Canada, the other 86 per cent going through American channels and ports. That fact alone is sufficient justification for my bringing this matter up in this House. The evidence taken shows conclusively that the present aids to navigation on our national route are out of date. The system of lights, signals, buoys and other aids, are found to be of the lowest standard and far below what the steamer captains say are required. Such a condition of things is not at all consistent with the greatest security to life and property, and is a groat disadvantage not only to tiie large Atlantic steamers, but to all persons directly or indirectly interested in our shipping trade. Small coasting vessels are equally dependent on the marks and aids to navigation furnished by the government, so that it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the improvements which are marked out in the chart submitted with the evidence and the urgent necessity of the work being attended to without delay. If Canada is not to see herself completely outstripped in the race for commercial supremacy, we have not a moment to lose and can no longer afford to remain with arms folded.
I am not taking up this question from any sectional point of view or out of any special regard for the interests of any particular locality. I am taking the broad view
['Well, I shall not say anything against helping Halifax, and Sydney, and perhaps one or two other ports in Nova Scotia, because the whole country will benefit from it. But, as I said before, the only fault I can find with my colleagues is that they have not spent enough in that direction, they should have spent more money instead of less.\nNow, I would like to say one word about the iee-!brifl,ge. The hon. member for St. Lawrence division stated that he hoped the government would take means to break the ice-bridge and not allow it to take at Cap Rouge. I am quite certain that when the piers of the bridge at Quebec are planted, there will be an ice-bridge formed very early in the season; but that ice-bridge, instead of being an impediment or a drawback, will on the contrary enable us to have', "navigation up to Montreal earlier in the spring than we did before, and why ? If you do not get an ordinary ice-bridge you get later what we call a jam-bridge. That bridge which is formed at Cap Rouge to-day is formed of the ice coming down the river all the way from Three Rivers, when large battures, at high t de are carried down the river and it goes up again with the next tide, and it follows this course all winter going up and down the river until a very low tide with strong easterly winds causes these masses of ice to jam at Cap Rouge and piles up 80 feet thick. I think I said 60 feet the last time I spoke, but I did so because some one said 60 feet and some one said 40. It was something like the story of the foxes' tails. Well, as it is so near six o'clock. I will keep the story of the foxes' tails for another occasion.\nI will only say this and I have done, that when the natural bridge forms the ice is never more than four or five feet thick and that bridge across the river prevents drifting ice in great masses going down into the harbour and being sent floating up and down. After the bridge has formed early in the season our harbour is free of ice ia winter. The channel is quite free. Tim batture ice forms along the wharfs and coves and it is a great safeguard ; other wise, the ice moving down from up the river in the stream with such force that it woliM carry away every wharf in the harbour, but the batture ice forms a sort of guide-way for it. The ice on both sides of the stream is polished quite smooth for miles from Cap Rouge to where it leaves Quebec and makes for the Island of Orleans, but a jam bridge remains much longer and resists all effort to mine it. I would like to have said more but it being six o'clock I will reserve the balance for another occasion.\nAt six o'clock the House took reeess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. BICKERDIKE.: taken by the Montreal Board of Trade, which considered the whole question as affecting all the different points of Halifax, St. John, Sydney and thence to Montreal and from Montreal to the upper lakes. We must not forget that our shipping season by the St. Lawrence is short, due to climatic reasons, and that consequently it is imperative that the navigation of that route should be tiie safest and speediest and the best possible in every sense of the word. I think every lion, member will agree with me in that opinion.
In order that the Canadian producer may be able to compete with the exporters of other countries successfully, it is necessary that the produce of Canada should reach the European markets at as low a charge for transport as possible. The chief expenditure in connection with such transport is the freight from the shipping point, and that freight includes not merely the actual cost of carriage but also the cost of insurance, and at present the rate of insurance which the exporter has to pay is practically prohibitive.
It is perfectly clear that to enable the Canadian producer to compete with his rivals in freight, the insurance upon the hull and upon the cargo must be as low as it possibly can be. The insurance rate on tiie St. Lawrence route is much higher than from any American port. But if the approaches to the St. Lawrence are made as safe as are those to the American ports, the insurance must be reduced, and it will be reduced in proportion as we improve the approaches. An increase in the facilities of navigation will rapidly tend to diminish the insurance rates upon hulls and cargoes and will largely augment the tonnage that comes to the 'St. 'Lawrence. It will also increase the size of the vessels and will lower the rate of freight, while the providing of 'better steamers will enable the Canadian producer to reach his market more promptly and with greater certainty. I am sure that any lion, member of this House who has ever done any exporting will realize the importance of reaching his destination on time, or as nearly so as possible. The increase in navigation will tend to reduce insurance rates, and it will improve (lie promptness of delivery, which is of vitai importance to the produce of Canada, especially perishable articles and live stock. If the improvements proposed are made and have the effect it is reasonable to anticipate, we may look forward in the immediate future to a large increase in the number of steamers and the size of steamers, and an improvement in their promptness in reaching their destination ; and we may also anticipate a diminution in freights and of the rates of insurance on the hull and cargo, greatly cheapening the cost of transport. A further effect will be a large increase in the exports of Canada, which would be beneficial to the St. Lawrence

route and would also immensely increase tlie traffic of the canals and of our western ports. Now, Sir, that is the statement that has ibeen made by the Montreal Board of Trade and underwriters and shipping agents. If the condition of the St. Lawrence navigation is not improved to a very great extent and modernized, and if these improvements are not taken in hand immediately, one result, so far as Canadian trade is concerned, will be the removal of a great deal of our shipping. The shipping that trades by the St. Lawrence is very largely owned- in Great Britain, and the owners will not send their vessels to Montreal, Quebec, Three Rivers or Sorel if it pays better to send them to ports in the United States. I have sent out to the members a list of the withdrawals from this port. The Dominion line alone were in the habit of sending six or seven steamers a month-large vessels-to the St. Lawrence. That line of steamers has been taken off the St. Lawrence route and put. on the American route to Portland in connection with the Grand Trunk Railway. There has also been a large portion of the Thomson fleet withdrawn. There is the withdrawal of the large boats of the Hamburg-American line, the St. Lawrence tonnage of which is greatly diminished. The Donaldson line have taken some of their larger vessels off the St. Lawrence route and placed them on the American route. The Johnston line is counted one of the best lines trading between the St. Lawrence and Great Britain-Liverpool. The whole of that line is withdrawn, not a single vessel coming to the St. Lawrence today. The Leyland line has been very much reduced. This goes to show that, unless something is done and done quickly, the St. Lawrence route is going to suffer, and suffer very much. I shall not go into all the details ; they have already been gone over by the delegation, but 1 may refer to some of the points that were suggested by the captains and pilots engaged on the St. Lawrence route. They desire a good light and a fog signal ou the north-east part of Belle Isle.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Is the hon. gentleman reading from the report or from thel evidence ?


Robert Bickerdike: I am simply taking out a number of the parts pointed out as important by the captains examined by the board of trade.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Then, I understand, the hon. gentleman is reading a portion of somebody's evidence.


Robert Bickerdike: I give the points most strongly brought out by the evidence given by the captains. We have examined 33 or 34 of these captains. Of these 33 agreed that the present light is useful where it is, but another is certainly required on the
north-east end of Belle Isle. When we come to the north, a light on the north-east end would prove invaluable.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Is the hon. gentleman referring to some point between Quebec and Montreal ?


Robert Bickerdike: No, this is Belle Isle. I ask the hon. gentleman to start with me at Belle Isle and come up the river. The next is Flower Ledge, Newfoundland. It is known to all the members of the House that the lights provided in Newfoundland are provided by the Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries for tlie^benefit of the Canadian service. As will be seen by a glance at the references over two-thirds of the captains consider a fog signal at Flower Ledge a necessity. Flower Ledge marks the south-west entrance to the straits. Several shipmasters complained of the Cape Norman signal. It is a very poor one and needs strengthening. Something should be done to prevent the possibility of it being mistaken for Cape Bauld. One witness says that the signal at St. Armour is not low enough, and another thinks that the light at that place and also the one at Flower Cove lack penetrating power. I may say that the whole evidence given (by the captains goes to prove that the present lights should be improved. Most of the lights, as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows well, are stationary lights. What we ask for are flash lights. If the light should flash twenty seconds green, and twenty seconds white, then twenty seconds dark, all the captain of a vessel has to do is to take out his watch and consult his chart, and he knows where he is no matter what time of night it may be or how dark it may be. That is what the captains ask for all along the line. Then I ask the hon. gentleman to go back with me to Cape Race, possibly not so relatively important as many other places, because many captains passed it over without suggestion. A few are satisfied with both light and signal. Two would have the signal and three the light increased in power. A siren would be most favoured. Four captains suggest that Cape Race flight should be moved a little to the south-west. This would be an exceedingly useful alteration because at present the light is too much to the north-east to properly guide the vessels coming from the west. After dealing with Cape Pine they come to Cape Ray. Some fifteen or sixteen captains denounce the present light. It seems to require strengthening.
There is another suggestion about Cape Ray. The light at Port Basque, a little to the east, is very weak and of no use. while the Cape Ray light itself, being rather too much to the west, makes some change advisable. The Port Basque light might be made stronger, or else the Cape Ray light itself might be moved a little south and

placed on Duck Island ; or another light put on Duck Island. Any of these alterations would seem to meet the wants of those who navigate this coast. Then, too, the signal at Cape Ray is denounced as very poor, and a new one-a good siren or whistle -should be placed here without delay. In any case a signal at Port Basque is suggested. It will also be observed that the Post Basque light is a red flash and utterly useless. As stated elsewhere, red flashes anywhere are condemned. After Cape Ray comes the Bird Rocks. The light here, as most hon. gentlemen know, is a fixed light and a very poor one. Then in regard to Anticosti, it will be seen that sixteen masters expressed the strongest desire for the further lighting of that island. It appears that Heath Point light, being the only one at the eastern point of the island, is too much around to the south-west. Something more is urgently wanted to enable mariners to round this coast more easily from the north. One or two suggest, as a remedy for this, a lighthouse on some high land up towards Pox Bay. The great majority, however, would strongly prefer a light-ship anchored off Heath Point, in from 20 to 40 fathoms of water, which would place it from three to ten miles from the shore. This would benefit them when rounding from either direction. All those who spoke of the Heath Point signal were unanimous in condemning the present one. A 20 minute bomb is absurd and dangerous, for a ship would easily have time to run ashore in the interval. Every one of the captains condemn a twenty minute gun service. They say that in many eases they have found that the intervals should not be longer than (two minutes.
Then we come to the south shore of the lower St. Lawrence, from Fame Point to Father Point. Beginning at Fame Point, this is a most important place, especially for ships by the southern routes. There is at present no fog signal, and all agree on the absolute necessity of having one. It may be stated in general that the demand is for good sirens or whistles in preference to guns. A glance at the reference shows this. Again, it is asserted by nil. with one, or at most, two exceptions, that a good signal should be placed at every lighthouse, but with the qualification that they must all be distinctive. For this reason one or two suggest the retaining of some kind of explosive signal here and there. In any case the existing bombs and guns are condemned as fog signals. Another very general suggestion is that all the lights should be flashing, revolving or occulting, provided (hey be distinctive, and more power should be given them. A red flash is useless, merely dimming the light. A fixed light is preferred by one or two. but then only when there are no other lights with which to confuse it. Off Matane there is a small buoy which is found useless. It should be Mr. BICKERDIKE.
replaced by a large automatic can buoy. Some would have it gas and some with a whistle. All up this coast the general suggestion is that the lights should be stronger and changed to flashing ones. Also that fog signals be placed at all lights. Fame Point, Cape Chatte, Matane and Father Point have special need of signals.
Now, Sir, we come to the coasts of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. At St. Paul's Island the signal is not properly heard. At Sydney Harbour, Low Point has a whistle which cannot be heard ; it is useless as it is, and should be replaced by a new one with a different sound and more powerful. Flint Island light is described as miserable. At Cape North the light requires strengthening. About the western end of Nova Scotia, Cape Negro light is a wretched one and needs improving very badly. It is a white light with red flash, and of no use. It is suggested to move it to the south-east side of the island where it could be seen when approching from either way. Cape Sable light is two and a half miles inside the outside zone of danger. There should be a lightship and a good signal. At the Lurcher Shoal there is now only a buoy. A good lightship with a signal is desired. The same may be said about South Reef at Briar Island. At Musquash, the entrance to iSt. John, the light is very poor.
The lights on Prince Edward Island are fixed lights and red ones. They are. therefore, almost useless. They should all be replaced toy distinguishable flash lights. West Point, P.E.I., needs a signal. There is a buoy there, but it is no good. There should be a siren signal to guard against this reef. The present buoy being a large and heavy one, is rather a source of danger than a protection when the weather is thick or stormy. Cape Eg-mont is a fixed red light, and useless. It should he stronger, and a flash light. Grand river is the same. The lights of dwelling houses are seen first when approching this point.
Now, that takes us to Father Point. From which place to Quebec and Montreal we examined pilots who are better qualified than anybody else to give evidence. Captains coming up the river depend entirely on the pilots after they leave Father Point, or almost entirely. Beginning at Father Point, a ga,s buoy is wanted at the north-west reef of Bicquette. At Bic, both light and signal need to be improved. The Cape Eagle light should be moved to the next point westwards. The Red Island lightship should he moved further south, and placed in twenty fathoms. At Green Island the gun is useless. It should be heal'd at least every five minutes. Cape Salmon signal is defective, and the light is not powerful enough. At the Traverse improvements are wanted in the worst way. Nearly all the witnesses

speak of this place and agree in their suggestions. First of all they want a pier light, with a signal at the lower end, similar to the one recently placed at the upper end. A still stronger wish is expressed for one or more gas buoys in addition to the existing one. At the Pillars a gas buoy is wanted. At Crane Island channel at present there is only four fathoms of water, and ships have to wait on the tide. I am pleased that the Minister of Public Works is in his seat, because he will realize that this is a very important point. There is no place from Montreal to the sea where we should have less than 30 feet of water. I think the minister without portfolio (Hon. Mr. Dobell) knows better than any one else in this House the benefit that commerce will derive from such an improvement. St. Thomas channel should be deepened to 30 feet. Between Crane Island and Bellechasse there should be a gas buoy on one of the parches. At St. Laurent there is one suggestion, that this light be altered to a flashing one. At Point Levis a gas ibouy is wanted in 8 fathoms to mark the south shore.
I would call the attention of the minister (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) to the fact that very successful experiments have been made with the wireless telegraph system for the purpose of signalling the vessels that may be in danger. An automatic system of signals transmitted by wireless telegraphy for the purpose of warning vessels in stormy weather against the proximity of reefs and rocks, and which already has been experimented with on the Pacific Coast, has been laid before German marine experts, according to a report to the State Department from Consul-General Guenther at Frankfort, Germany. The automatic part of the apparatus is said to consist of a wheel with a number of cogs arranged at suitable intervals which slide over a Morse apparatus. This latter is connected with a ladder placed vertically on rising ground on shore, or on a light-house. From the top of the ladder electric waves emanate and are taken up by receiving apparatus on vessels having such, within a radius of seven miles. Bells sound on the ships and the receivers note the spot of danger.
It might be well for the hon. minister (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) to make inquiries into this wireless telegraph system, and there is no doubt if we could adopt it at certain points in the Gulf it would be of great assistance to the navigation of those waters.
The most serious feature of the whole evidence is the situation at Quebec itself, where one would expect that the best lights in the world would have been provided. The hon. member for Quebec west (Hon. Mr. Dobell) has crossed the Atlantic often enough to know how very important it is. Of all the suggested improvements in the river the most important seem to be needed at Quebec. All the witnesses speak
of this place. What is wanted there is a leading light for going in and out of the harbour. At present there are two red range lights on the Quebec wharf, but these are strongly condemned by everybody, they are quite insufficient in power, and are not distinguishable. To remedy this state of affairs powerful range lights should be placed on the western end of the island of Orleans. There are some general observations made concerning this part of the river, but I will not detain the House by reading them. The evidence on the whole line from Montreal to Quebec shows that we want a 30 foot channel, 500 feet wide, well lighted, not only from Montreal to Quebec, but from Montreal to the sea.
We are not taking any narrow view of the matter ; we are not at all jealous of any advantages that may accrue to Quebec. We say that anything that comes to Quebec, Three Rivers, Sorel and Montreal is for the benefit of the St. Lawrence route and for the benefit of Canada. I would like to point out for a moment the amount of trade that this country is losing by not having a good route by way of the St. Lawrence. The average annual export of wheat and flour from the United States is 200,000,000 bushels, and 200,000.000 bushels of corn. The same thing is true in the case of oats, barley, bacon, ham, pork, and other commodities which are exported in the same proportion. The largest amount ever exported from the St. Lawrence in one year was 40,000,000 bushels of grain, and I claim that when our waterways are in a proper condition we are going to transport a large portion of this immense traffic. I mention this so that hon. members may realize the .importance of this question today. There is no question in my mind that the grain and other products from the western states and from western Canada will go down over the St. Lawrence route. The produce of the west, having descended the St. Lawrence, the great natural, and I may add, the international route to Europe, as far as Montreal, and with the completion of the work which I have outlined, cargoes from the west will be exported via the St. Lawrence route cheaper than will be possible via any other route, and in proportion therefore, as we succeed in making the great waterway through Canada superior to other routes, just to the same extent will be the success of the great commercial development of this country. Now. ns to Montreal ; Montreal, in my opinion, possesses great natural advantages as a place of exchange and distribution between the ocean and interior, as also by our present railway system. I can quite understand that this is a subject upon which there will be various opinions in this House. I am supported in mine by experience and a careful study of the situation, covering a large number of years, and by being in constant touch with the St. Lawrence trade of the country for the

past forty years, and having given the question very close, careful and continuous attention. Now, Sir, if my views are, as 1 believe them to be, sound and based on ascertained facts, and entertaining these views as I do, I think I will be forgiven for placing them before the country and the House as I am now doing. I have the great satisfaction of believing that I am voicing the sentiments of almost all the hon. members, if not all, on botii sides of this House. This is not a political question. I am sure that the hon. members on both sides of the House will agree with me that something has to be done for the sake of the commercial reputation of this country, and that it has to be done now. It is too serious a matter to trifle with. I have laid the facts before the House in connection with the work of perfecting the channel between ocean navigation and the city of Montreal. It must be borne in mind tlmt in all countries ocean-going steamers go as far into the interior of the country as they possibly can. Most of the hon. members of this House are aware that the old port of Glasgow to-day is the principal port in Scotland, and probably one of the best ports they have. Greenock was originally the great port of Scotland. At millions of pounds of expense, the little river Clyde that the boys used to wade across, was dredged out. and now the largest steamers from the Atlantic go right up to the interior of Scotland day and night. It is a fact that in all countries steamers will go just as far into the interior of the country as they can get. I cannot tell why. No one, I suppose, can tell why, any more than we can tell why it is that the cities and towns of this country grow to the westward. The same thing happened at Liverpool and at Manchester. Manchester has built one of the largest and best canals, I think, in the world, ns the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) will bear me out. As far as the St. Lawrence is concerned. in my opinion, the magnitude of the capabilities of (he St. Lawrence route would give a decided superiority to that route over any or every other route that it is possible to have between the western states, as well as western Canada, and Europe. With navigation so improved and perfected as to make the St. Lawrence the cheapest, quickest and best route for this great and ever-increasing trade of the west. Montreal must necessarily be the point of distribution. Some hon. gentlemen, especially the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), claim that the day is coming when Quebec city will be the great commercial center. I hold a different opinion from that of the hon. gentleman. I may add. however, that one of my main objects has been to give prominence to this question, to place the facts before the House, and to Invite public attention to the subject. I do not think, although I apologize to this House for bringing the subject up again, that this question has Mr. BICKERDIKE.
been sufficiently before the country west of Montreal. It has been a burning question with us, but I do not think it has been properly introduced into this House before. I can only lay the question before the hon. gentlemen as a fair business proposition, shorn of any attempt at eloquence. But, the facts are there. There is no government that has spent one dollar on the port of Montreal. We are still in hopes that when the supplementary estimates are brought down by the Minister of Pulblic Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies), there will be a sufficient sum in these estimates to carry out the works that I have suggested. I hope that the House will be unanimous in supporting these two hon. gentlemen in carrying out these works, and that if they do not put sufficient money into their estimates, the House will be unanimous in asking them to put in more. This is work that has to be done now. I will have no reason to complain if these opinions of mine are discussed and criticised, as the more they are discussed and criticised, the more likely it is that this work will be taken up in a thorough manner. I am familiar witli all the various routes from the west to Europe, and knowing all the advantages and capabilities of the different receiving points. I have no hesitation in stating that I know of none which possess the extraordinary advantages which may be made available at Montreal.
Let me here draw the attention of the House to the work now on hand for the improvement of the Montreal Harbour and it will give hon. gentlemen an idea of the extent of the operations now being carried on there. The Harbour Commissioners are entirely reconstructing the central part of the Harbour. Between the entrance of the La chine Canal and the Victoria pier, a distance of three quarters of a mile, the entire wharfage, which includes the berths hitherto occupied by the Allan, Dominion and Eider Dempster steamship lines, is being torn out and replaced by modern wharfs of ample size suited to the rapid handling of cargoes from the largest steamships. There will bo 9.850 feet, or within a fraction of two miles of such new wharf frontage, and included in it are three great piers which will be over twice the size of the new piers recently built in New York for the Cunard and White Star lines. All these wharfs are of such height and so (protected from ice shoves ns to allow of permanent freight houses being placed upon them, and will have tracks for bringing railway cars and ships together so that freight may be transhipped with the least posisble cost. About half of this reconstruction has been already done and work on the remainder will be carried on night and day. throughout the working season until finished.

In an adjoining part of tlie harbour a wharf specially fitted for the coal business has been recently built, aud within a short time that will be further extended 2,600 feet, or say half a mile.
In the eastern part of the harbour the Department of Public Works has given a contract for the construction of a large high level pier, also fitted for having permanent freight houses and railway tracks. Much of the material for this new pier has been made ready during the winter, and construction work will be commenced as soon as the ice clears off the Harbour.
These enlargement works will make a total of about 14,000 feet, or almost three miles, of new wharf frontage of the best and most modern character.
The following statement in reference lo the money expended on Montreal Harbour will show what has. been done by us
Approximate expenditure on capital account for Harbour of Montreal to end of 1900.
Harbour of Montreal	
$1,483,912	07Harbour dredging	
839,613	91Windmill Point wharf	
372,228	70Windmill Point basin	
189,877	93Hochelaga construction	
679,439	68Deep water berths, sec 26	
14,333	54Longue Point wharf	
7,886	27Ship channel through harbour	12,832	20Dry dock test boring	
5,468	06Guard pier construction	
275,587	57
Removing old wharf, Victoria
Bridge	
3,217	54Harbour enlargement	
406,928	03Harbour, new approach	
13,298	35Harbour railway	
109,485	09Dominion Coal Co.'s tracks	
26,949	47Harbour plant	
289,437	80Real estate	
96,845	01

The bonded debt is-	_
To the public	 $2,222,000 00
To the government, 3J per cent.. 2,000,000 00

Average interest, 4 per cent.
The city of Montreal contributes towards the improvements now in progress	$631,317 85
Montreal is to-day the head of ocean navigation, but I believe the day is not far distant when probably Port Arthur will compete with Montreal for being the head of ocean navigation. I believe the day is not far distant when the [Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) will be called upon to place $70,000,000 in the estimates to provide for the French river district and the Georgian Bay canal.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Robert Bickerdike: An hon. member says ' hear, hear,' but I will venture to say that although he and I are no longer young men, I think we will both live to see the Georgian Bay canal an accomplished fact. When the
works that I have suggested are carried out, Canada, instead of shipping 40,000,000 bushels of grain a year will be shipping
100,000,000 bushels a year, and, when the Georgian Bay canal is completed, we will ship 300,000,000 bushels of grain by the St. Lawrence route. I have the figures to prov a what I say.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) if he proposes to make a 20-foot channel ?


Robert Bickerdike: Nothing less than a 20-foot channel will do. I believe the future of this 20-foot channel will be that steamers drawing thirty-three feet of water, will leave Europe and come to Quebec. They will there unload down to thirty feet draft, proceed to Montreal and take off the eastern cargo, and many of these vessels-I do not mean the larger ones-will proceed to Port Arthur and Fort William, deliver the balance of their cargo, and come back loaded with wheat and grain and other products of the west. I believe also that the large lake steamers will come down the St. Lawrence. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that when the Georgian Bay canal is built, and built it will be, we shall carry 200,000,000 bushels of grain over that route. I have great hope for the future of the transportation trade of Canada. I believe with many of our friends from the North-west Territories and Manitoba, that when the great prairie country from the foot-hills of the Rockies down to Selkirk becomes a vast wheat-producing country, as is its destiny, then the Hudson Bay route will be constructed, and for five months of the year at least large quantities of grain and cattle will be exported front the great west over that route. It has been stated, Sir, that this country cannot afford to incur such a large expenditure at the present time as is necessary to provide the best facilities for our transportation system. I state here, and I will be backed up in this statement by every man who has the true interests of Canada at heart, that this country cannot afford to be inactive any longer, that the money must be provided for these great national works, and they must be undertaken and pushed forward at the earliest possible moment. There is no question in my mind, Sir, but that in the near future the Minister of Finance will be obliged to provide at least $70,000,000 for this great undertaking of completing the Georgian Bay canal and French river route connecting the St. Lawrence with the great lakes, and a great future is in store certainly for the St. Lawrence route. Quebec, Three Rivers and Sorel, as well as Montreal will be the great St. Lawrence ports in the summer time, while we will have St. John, Halifax and Sydney for the winter season. That. Sir, brings me to another question which I would like to refer to. I presume that most of the hon. gentlemen who know


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: What harm would the country suffer if it did ?


Mr. BICKER  DIKE@: None at all ; but my object to-day is chiefly to prove to the House and this country that not one dollar of public money has ever been spent in the harbour of Montreal ; and I challenge any hon. member to put his finger on a single item in the Auditor General's Report showing that there lias been. That may seem a bold statement to make, when every little harbour from oue end of tiie country to the other has received large grants from this government. But, Sir, if the government continues to treat Montreal like a stepchild, it will not stop the progress of that city and port ; for I think we are a sufficiently enterprising people that if the government continues to do us an injustice, we will endeavour to take care of ourselves. When the returns come down, they will show that instead of anything having been spent by the government on the port of Montreal, the government of this country owe the harbour commissioners a million and a quarter of dollars ; and when the supplementary estimates come down, I hope there will be sufficient in them at least to pay the government's debt to the harbour commissioners. Now, I would like to say just one word with regard to the harbour commissioners. They are entirely reconstructing the central part of the harbour, and they are paying the interest on every dollar of the cost. A number of the members of this House visited the port of Montreal a year ago, and they must have been impressed with the work being done there. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals stated the other day that the steamships coming to that port were antiquated. There is a good deal in what he said, but it does not apply to what we are doing in Montreal. We are raising the wharfs to a high level, and we expect to have a railway service on them which will be controlled by the harbour commissioners, so thait all railroads will have access to the harbour and to the sheds. We expect to have terminal facilities there which will surprise the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals when he visits that city. There is one other question to which I wish to refer. While fully endorsing. as I have said, the preferential tariff, I hope the government will insist, as I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will, on Canadian cattle being allowed entrance into the markets of England and Scotland on equal terms with their own stock. As I know there are a number of other members who wish to speak on this transporta-
3 >99

tion question, I will, with your permission, leave any other matters until the close of this debate, as I may have omitted particulars which I may then wish to refer to. I thank the House for the kind attention they have given me, and I close by repeating what I have already said, that if ever Canada is to become commercially great, we must take up these important improvements without any more delay.


Mr. THOMAS G. RODDICK (Montreal, St. Antoine).: In rising, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks on this question of transportation, especially in its relation to the city of Montreal and the St. Lawrence river from Montreal to the sea, it is a pleasure for me to feel, as my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division, (Mr. Bicker-dike) evidently felt that this is not a political or a party question. Any discussion in this House on the importance of our great waterway and the establishment of a national port in Canada should never be lowered to the level of party, but be considered, from start to finish, as a patriotic and national question. My hon. friend has gone so thoroughly over the ground that but little remains for me to say. We are here, Sir, to-day not to find fault with the government, not to blame those ministers who are administering the two great Departments of Marine and Fisheries and Public Works-the two departments to which we appeal for assistance on this occasion. But we are here to implore, to beg practically on our knees for something to be done which will improve the facilities for navigation of the St. Lawrence and the terminal facilities of the port of .Montreal. We want if possible to have to-day a declaration, a definite statement from the government, as to what amount of money is likely to be expended in making the city of Montreal the national port of Canada, in making it a free port, and in so improving the facilities for navigation on the St. Lawrence that confidence will be restored to the shipping and commercial Interests of this country. That confidence has been practically lost, not alone by the shipping interests of Canada, but of Great Britain and of France, and I might even say of Germany. We find that our trade is terribly handicapped by the high insurance rates charged on ships and cargoes coming into and going out of the St. Lawrence.
I have taken a little trouble to get some information on this subject, and although I may be going over the same ground as my hon. friend who preceded me, I think that the importance of this subject furnishes me with a good excuse. I have been furnished by a friend of mine, of wide commercial experience-and I may say a gentleman who lias always supported our friends on the other side-with this Information :
Marine insurance to the St. Lawrence is more than double that to American ports; for in-


Robert Bickerdike: stance, where the insurance is 4i per cent to, say, Baltimore, we have to pay from 9 to 10 per cent, and even 11 per cent, on the steamers employed in the St. Lawrence route, which means on a vessel costing, say, $500,000, making five voyages in the season, extra insurance of $5,000 per voyage, or $25,000 per year.
One of the large companies employed in the St. Lawrence, in fixing their risk for the ensuing year, found (to use the expression of. the owners) ' that the St. Lawrence stank in the nostrils of the underwriters.' When it was pointed out that the government was going to improve the gulf and river, the underwriters stated ' that they would wait until that time came round.'
This difference of insurance is no exaggeration, as the company referred to arranged the premiums on their Montreal, Baltimore and Newport News steamers at the same time.
Regarding tramp tonnage, we have to say that while we are able to charter all the steamers required for our trade on the Atlantic coast, we find it next to impossible to get steamers for our Montreal trade, the charterers only stating in letter received from them this week that the trouble regarding Montreal was that the owners would not face the insurance charge on the St. Lawrence route.
Seventy-five per cent of Lloyd's underwriters will not look at the St. Lawrence, either for hulls or freight.
That proves tbat we are driving away trade from this country every day, and when it can be proved, as has been already stated by my hon. friend who preceded me, that whole lines of steamers are leaving our shores every day, one can readily understand the necessity for immediate action. My hon. friend has given us the names of the steamship lines which have left Montreal, and I am very sorry to hear that others are likely to follow suit. This means that something must be done, and warrants us in demanding that the administration declare positively and definitely what they intend doing. It will not do to put us off this time with the ordinary stereotyped statement which ministers use too often, I am sorry to say, that this matter will be taken into their serious consideration. We want to get something definite, and that without delay, as to the policy likely to be adopted.
Other reasons tvhy shipping is leaving our river, besides the high rates of insurance, are the feeling of insecurity in traversing the St. Lawrence route, the wretched terminal facilities in the port of Montreal, and the high harbour duties. The terminal facilities have already been referred to at considerable length, but I might refer to a few points which have not been touched upon. In the first place, our wharfs are all of too low a level, which makes practically impossible the building of permanent sheds, such as are found in other terminals. The sheds, of course, as you are aware, are removed every spring because otherwise the ice would carry them off. High level wharfs are then of the utmost importance and should be included in any scheme sub-

mitred by tlie government or the minister in charge of this department.
We find that the transportation of cattle, which my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdilce) so thoroughly understands, is a matter of considerable importance also. I am informed on the best authority that because of the fact that cattle have to be bustled about and must pass through narrow streets for long distances down to the wharfs, they practically lose In value from $2 to $5 per head before they leave the port of Montreal. That is a very serious question and one to which consideration should be given. Another matter which was brought to my attention the other day was that the flour which was shipped to Montreal is practically decreased in value by about $4 per car-load from the fact that there are no storage facilities and the flour must be left in the cars until shipping can take place, and then it costs about $4 a car to carry this flour to the ships. At the very highest, a charge of $2 should cover the transhipment. Then, to our lumber friends I would say that we have no facilities for piling lumber in the harbour of Montreal. The consequence is that the purchaser finds that he is obliged to pay for demurrage to the extent of $10 or $12 for the boat or barge on which the lumber is carried. This, of course, should not be. The question of grain is, of course, the most important one-I run over these items hoping that they will be dealt with at greater length by hon. gentlemen who follow me. I am convinced from my conversation with commercial friends and from the fact that the council of the Board of Trade of Montreal recommended that course, that probably the best plan is to have the government build the elevator. Many schemes have been suggested, but this is the one which the council of the board of trade, after long consideration has recommended. These elevators should be built at a suitable point, and, if possible should be approached by an elevated railway, so that the general traffic on the wharfs might not be so much disturbed. The idea in having the government build the elevators is to prevent the possibility of foreign contractors intervening and foreign capital being used for this purpose. It is not thought desirable that the scheme that has been for so long before the public, the Conners scheme, or even the Wolvin scheme, should be carried out, but it is their opinion-I give it as theirs-that the government should build the elevators. One might be built at a time, or two might be built at the same time as might be thought desirable. A charge sufficient to pay the interest and cover the working expenses should alone be made. If it is found at the end of the year that the charges are too low. they could be raised to cover these two points.; if too high, they could be lowered so as to cover barely working expenses and in-101
terest. In the event of the government refusing to ibulM- the elevators, it seems to me that the best thing would be that they should utilize money that is in their hands belonging to the city of Montreal for that purpose, as suggested by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence, or the scheme that is proposed by Mr. Crathern, of Montreal, that the harbour board should borrow $1,000,000 from the government and build the elevator. I am obliged, however, as a man without practical experience to come to the conclusion that the council of the board of trade may get credit for having thought this matter over very seriously. In all probability their scheme is the one that will give the most satisfaction. A third reason why ships are leaving our ports is that the condition of navigation is so unsatisfactory from Montreal to the sea that ship-owners will not run the risks that they would run if they adopted this route.
Mr. CIIAIiLTOX. May I ask my hon. friend in what portion of the river tlie conditions of navigation are particularly unsatisfactory-above or below Quebec ?


Thomas George Roddick: I am coming to that. In the first place. I believe that the channel should be 30 feet deep, as my hon. friend has stated, but I think I would add another 100 feet to the width, making it 600 feet, instead of 500 feet, as, I think, was suggested. We know that one of the great bugbears to captains and pilots is the fear that, in passing down this narrow channel, they will strike one side or the other, and if a little side wind happens to be blowing, with that and the current behind them, they are almost certain to be veered around [DOT]and jammed across the channel, and thus block navigation for hours or even days. We must remember that when the present channel was dug, the ships were very much smaller than they are now. I think we ought to legislate a little for posterity in this matter. If we are going to make any alterations in this channel, we should make it fit to take the Celtic for instance, of
20.000	tons up to the city of Montreal. And, unless you arrange upon a generous scale, you will find that in a few years, ten years or so, shippers will tell you that you have made a mistake and that the' channel should be 600 feet instead of 500 feet in width. That is the great difficulty, I think, in the navigation between Montreal and Quebec-the channel question. The lighting question, which also has been referred to so fully, deserves a word. The lighting of the river immediately below Montreal is hardly sufficient. We find that ships-they may be large freight steamers, or even passenger steamers-come up to the foot of the current, only three or four miles from' the wharfs, and they have to remain there all night, whereas if we had the river properly lighted, these steamers could come up to



the wharfs and a great deal of work could be done during the night. For shippers are obliged, owing to the cramped condition to the harbour, to work night and day. In fact, most of the work is done at night from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Proper lighting would facilitate matters very much, and I would make that suggestion to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. These are the only points that I have to suggest on the route down as far as Quebec. My hon. friend from St. Lawrence (Mr. Biekerdike) went so fully into the *Question of lighting and signals that 1 do not intend to touich upon it. He has explained fully how necessary it is that certain changes should be made. One point which I hope every hon. gentlemen heard, was that there is a general consensus of opinion that wherever there is a light there should also be a fog signal. That, I think, should be made very clear.
I know the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is aware of that fact, because he referred to it the other day when the delegation met him, and I hope he will see it carried out, that the sirens are made loud enough, and that the variety in sound is made great enough so that captains can tell, in a dense fog, and in the absence of a light, exactly where they are.
Now, there is another subject which was not referred to by my hon. friend, but which I consider of great importance. I have already referred to it from my seat in the House during the last parliament, that is, a hydrographic survey of the St. Lawrence river. A hydrographic survey of the river means that the tides and currents should be thoroughly studied, and that the depth of water should be ascertained and charted. The question of tides and currents, I know, has been ignored in some quarters. I will not say it has been ignored by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, but I know that he has not felt as keenly on that subject, and has not realized the necessity, as some others have done. Some of his predecessors felt as he did, that it was not a matter of great importance, and others have felt so. I hope he will be induced to study the question, and that ho will realize the great necessity of a hydrographic survey of the lower St. Lawrence.
I find, in looking over this book which has been presented to members of this House, known as the Shipping Inquiry, and which has been so fully referred to by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence, that twenty out of thirty-two captains, I think, whose evidence was taken and is reported, had something to say in regard to a hydrographic survey of the St. Lawrence. When you get | twenty out of over thirty-two sea captains going out of their way to say that the hydrographic survey of the St. Lawrence needs some attention, I think there is proof that the matter is an important one in their view. Some of the evidence is very specific.


Thomas George Roddick: For instance, Capt. Brodie, of the Sarma-tian of the Allan line, suggested that a good survey be made in the gulf, and that soundings should be taken between Greenway Island and Cape Ray. Capt. Farewell, who has been in the service for ten years, is of opinion that the gulf should be entirely resurveyed, as the soundings made by him did not correspond with those found on the chart. That is a very serious matter. Capt. Baxter believes that the lower St. Lawrence ought to be surveyed more and a fresh chart provided. He finds that the soundings on tiie chart differ altogether from what he got himself on the southern route. Capt. Ferris considers a hydrographic survey of the gulf advisable. He finds some things on the charts inside the gulf not always as found in actual work on me ship ; nor has he found the currents setting, as a rule, as shown on the charts. Capt. Taylor considers that the charts should be extended fifty or sixty miles further north to provide for cases where a vessel coming from the north strikes the north of Belle Isle, in which case the master is off the chart. Evidence is given of a similar character by Captains Cole, Vipond, Dingle, Lander, Iloilo, Evans, Chapman, Minister, Wallace and Fraser, who favour a hydrographic survey of the entire gulf or of parts of the gulf. I repeat that this matter is of sufficient importance, at any rate, to justify all that has been done in this direction, and to require that we should not retrace our steps, nor, at any rate, do less than has been done. There was a vote given by this House seven or eight years ago of $15,000 for this specific purpose. That grant followed a recommendation from the British Association meeting in the city of Montreal. The association felt strongly that this matter was being neglected by the Dominion government, and after considerable delay a sum of $15,000 was voted to provide a steamer for Mr. Bell Dawson and his staff, and they have done a lot of excellent work. I find in this report for 1900, published by him, that he has had to 'depend in great measure on the fishermen for his information, because he has been unable to cover the ground, not being supplied with a steamer. Referring to the tidal currents as a whole, he says :
The strongest of the tidal currents are found on the lower St. Lawrence, where in places they attain a speed of five or six knots per hour. Also, the tidal current in the Gut of Canso runs at four knots; and in the narrowest part of Northumberland Straits, oil Cape Jourmain, at three knots per hour. The currents in these localities have not been examined by this survey, however.
A current running at the rate of six knots per hour is practically unknown to the Marine Department in this country. That, I think, is a pity, and I hope the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will see that something is done to correct that. If time per-

mitted, I could make several other references from this book to prove that some action should be taken of a decisive character, and I hope the minister will give Mr. Bell Dawson a small yacht for the purpose. He does not need a steamer, he only needs a vessel of about SO tons, and he should have plenty of time and opportunity to correct these defects in the hydrographic survey. I remember myself, as a Newfoundlander, when I used to yacht round the coast of Newfoundland as a lad, how serious these currents are. I know we used to allow our boats to drift in certain currents which we happened to be acquainted with along the southern coast ; we would put out out" fishing tackle and lie down and go to sleep without bothering ourselves as to the course of our boat, and in the morning find that we had travelled several miles. One can understand, therefore, that a want of knowledge of the tides and currents in the lower St. Lawrence has undoubtedly led to shipwrecks.
The Mariposa is generally considered to have been wrecked on account of want of knowledge of the currents, and another steamer, the Algerian, if I mistake not, was also supposed to have been wrecked for the same reason. It is the general impression of scientific men that when no explanation can be given for the drifting of a ship on the rocks, the currents are to blame. Therefore, I think this matter is of sufficient importance to induce my hon. friend to increase his vote this year in order to cover that very important ground. Now, Sir, to (sum up, because I feel that I have taken up the attention of the House too long, our intention in bringing about this discussion has been to induce the government to make Montreal a free port. One of the things that stands in the wTay of the port of Montreal is the fact that the dues are high, whereas, we know that several of the American ports, such as Portland, Boston, I think Newport News and probably Baltimore, are free to shippers. I hope the government *will take the harbour over and make it and call it the national port of Canada, and that they will also make it a free port. I maintain that Montreal should be the national port of Canada, not because I live there, but for two reasons. In the first place, it is at the head of ocean navigation. That cannot be denied. It is 180 miles nearer to the great grain centres and to the centres from which we get the most of our commerce than is the port of Quebec. I have no quarrel with Quebec. On the contrary, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see Quebec flourish as Montreal will flourish, and there is no reason why Quebec should not share this prosperity with Montreal. I believe that when the great scheme outlined by the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), the construction of the Georgian Bay canal is carried out, not only Montreal, but Quebec, 1011
Toronto, Kingston and other cities will have good times. Whether it is desirable to speak of that now or not, I do not know. Doubtless there are others who are better able to discuss it than I am who will take it up later on. Then, Sir, I would suggest that the government should build elevators and allow the harbour board to run them and take entire charge of them. The St. Lawrence channel should be deepened to thirty feet and widened to COO feet, and the lighting of the river in the neighbourhood of Montreal should be very much improved. I may say before sitting down that a great deal of work has been done and a great deal of interest in this work has been displayed by both the hon. ministers who have to do with it. I know that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) has especially been anxious and desirous to make the city of Montreal the national port, and I think he should feel that he has this House and the country behind him. This desire is not confined to Montreal. One of the ablest speeches delivered on this subject a few weeks ago was by an hon. gentleman who lives a great distance from Montreal, who lives in the heart of an agricultural country. I speak of the hon. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Macdonald). One of the ablest speeches I listened to in this House was delivered by the hon. member for Huron. It shows that men who live at a distance from Montreal may feel that their pockets are not to be injured or their pride disturbed by supporting this great national project. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the kind hearing which you have given me.


Mr. W. C. EDWARDS (Russell).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much pleasure indeed to the addresses of the two hon. gentlemen who have preceded me. While not agreeing fully with them, I certainly agree with them to a very considerable extent, and later on, during the Course of the remarks that I have to address to this House,
I will state wherein I agree and wherein I differ. I had listened previously in this House to several discussions upon this important question, but have, myself, taken no part, in these discussions. At the same time, I have had strong convictions on the question which is now engaging the attention of the House, and I have entertained these convictions for a number of years. Now', the question is not a question "as to whether Montreal, or Quebec, or St. John, or Halifax, shall become the national port of Canada. That is not the question at all. There is a great contest going on on this continent, a very great contest indeed, in this matter of transportation, and this is perhaps one of the greatest questions that could engage the attention of the parliament of Canada. The contest is not one between rival sections of Canada or the rival ports of Canada, but the contest is one between ourselves and our great neighbours to the

south of us. The great question for Canadians is this : By what means will the produce of our farms, of our forests, of our mines and fisheries, or that portion which we export, be sent most cheaply to the countries which purchase them from us. That is the great question. The contest .will be a keen one. There is no doubt about that. To-day and for years past it has been the case that the produce of the western states has almost entirely found its way to the seaboard through American channels, and it is unfortunate that a large portion of the produce of western Canada, of Manitoba and the Xorth-west Territories, has also found its shipment through ports of the United States. Well, if the produce of Canadians to-day finds, and will ultimately find, the cheapest means of transportation to foreign markets through that channel, I have no fault to find, but we have in Canada the natural outlet not only for the products of the western portion of our own country, but for the products of the western states as well.	It devolves upon Canada to say
whether that shall be the outlet for the western country or whether it shall continually be the case that the greater portion of that shipment shall go through American channels. Now, coming immediately to make some reference to the speeches of the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, I will say at once, in discussing the question as it affects Montreal, or Quebec, or the other ports of Canada, that I have no choice whatever.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) made the statement that up to the present time the government of Canada had expended no money on the port of Montreal. He is perhaps correct as regards the harbour of Montreal, but he cannot deny that the government of Canada have spent a very large sum of money in deepening the St. Lawrence river between the city of Montreal and Quebec. And in so far as the expenditure generally is concerned in the city of Montreal, I doubt very much indeed if that great city has not had its share of the expenditure of public money in this country. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) also said that the St. Lawrence route was the cheapest of the various routes by which the produce of the great west could reach the seaboard, but later on he referred to the Georgian Bay canal as being the best transportation system of all. Well, if I understand correctly, the Georgian Bay canal is certainly not the St. Lawrence route; it is another route eu-tirelv; it will be the Ottawa route. It appears to me, Sir, that the great question today is not so much the carriage of grain to the city of Montreal itself, ns it is the affording of facilities to handle the grain and ship it to the old country when it gets to Montreal. I have been informed by the railway companies and the other carriers who take grain from the west to our seaports, that they can to-day bring a much Mr. EDWARDS.
larger quantity of grain and other produce to the head of navigation than there are ships to take them from Canadian ports. That question I will deal with more fully a little later on. In a great measure I agree with the statements of the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, as to the necessity of improving the St. Lawrence route in order to accommodate a larger number of ocean-going steamers. There is no question whatever that in so far as shipments from our lower ports are concerned, the St. Lawrence route ' has been somewhat of a barrier, because the insurance rates on the St. Lawrence route have discriminated very materially against all our Canadian trade. Suggestions have been made for the improvement of the existing insurance conditions by means of initiating new methods of insurance, but I may say at once that I do not agree with any proposition of that kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear hear.


William Cameron Edwards: cept that I think the city of Quebec is the natural ocean port for the St. Lawrence river. The city of Montreal is not to-day the natural port, nor will it ever be. The cheapest means by which we can transport our products to foreign markets is by the great ships that are now being built, and the still larger ships that will be built in the future. I believe that when proper provision is made, these great ships can come with all speed and safety to the port of Quebec; but you can deepen the St. Lawrence river as deep as you please between Montreal and Quebec, and it will never be a safe route for these very large vessels. My hon. friend (Mr. Roddick) un-. wittingly gave the reasons therefor, when he said that those large ships require a great deal more sea room than other ships, and, Sir, that sea room they never can possibly have in the artificial channel between Montreal and Quebec. For these reasons I state again: that I believe that all the money that has been expended in deepening the channel between Montreal and Quebec is wasted money, and that any further money expended in that direction will be wasted also.
There is another defect, so far as the development of shipments from Canada is concerned and it is a very great defect. I know perfectly well that many hon. gentlemen will not agree with me when I make the statement I am about to make ; but that does not hinder me from making the statement. One of the great reasons why we have not a greater number of vessels coming to Quebec, Montreal and the other ports of Canada is because of the tariff arrangements that have existed in Canada for many years. If Canada is to export its products in the cheapest possible way, there must be cargoes for the vessels both ways. The great reason why there are not more vessels coming to the ports of the St. Lawrence is that they cannot bring inward cargoes ; and therefore a surplus of our grain and other products has to-day to go to other ports to secure shipment.


William Findlay Maclean: Then, why is it that the port of New York, in a strong protectionist country, has an immense traffic ?


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentlemau thinks he has given me a very difficult question to answer ; but it is not at all difficult. To answer it I have to deal more largely with a certain question than I expected. If there is a country in the world so constituted as to withstand the iniquities of protection, it is the United States. If there is one country in the world geographically situated so as not to stand the iniquities of protection, it is Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: WTe are exactly alike.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman perhaps does not know that notwithstanding
its tariff restrictions, the United States buys more per head from foreign countries than Canada does ; and consequently there are more cargoes brought to that country in proportion to the shipping from it than there are to Canada as against the shipping from Canada. Now, my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division of Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) stated that he would give a still greater preference to British goods ; but how did he say he would give that preference ? He said he would give it to goods only that came to Canada through the ports of Canada.


Robert Bickerdike: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman says hear, hear. This is a free country, and every gentleman has a perfect right to entertain any views he pleases ; but, Mr. Speaker, that is not my view upon trade. My view upon trade is simply this : Give us the greatest possible freedom of trade, and then there will be no question of preferences of any kind.


William Findlay Maclean: Why do you not give it ? You are in power.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the party to which the hon. gentleman is attached is responsible for imposing on Canada the greatest disease that was ever imposed on any country. I am a free trader of free traders, a radical free trader ; but I have never on any occasion said that I would apply the antidote in such a way as to kill the patient. Under the iniquitous system created by hon. gentlemen opposite Canada has suffered for many years. It will take years to wipe out the iniquity ; but, Mr. Speaker, the iniquity will be wiped out


Bennett Rosamond: I rise to a point of order. I want to know if the hon. gentleman is entitled to charge the opposition with iniquity.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Fortin).: I understood the hon. member's remark to apply to the system or the policy, not to any individual member.


William Cameron Edwards: It will take years, Mr. Speaker ; and, free trader as I am, I stated years ago, when hon. gentlemen opposite occupied seats on this side of the House, that it would be impossible in a day or in a year to wipe out that great iniquity.


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of Trade and Commerce said he would do it.


William Cameron Edwards: I have nothing to do with what the Minister of Trade and Commerce may have said. This is a question on which I have always been able to think for myself, and I have done so independently of the views or contentions of any one ; and I think it would be a grand thing for

Canada, if not only the people of Canada, but the members of this House would study this question to the extent that I have studied it. There are those who believe that if we had larger imports from other countries, our manufactures in this country would decrease. Not at all. Let us give to Canada every facility, by cheap transportation, by allowing the farmer who is the great producer of the wealth of this country to buy what he wants as freely as he sells his products, and the development of this country will be so great that it will be but a few years when we shall manufacture ten times what we manufacture today. If this country is to prosper and develop, the men who are producing its wealth must not be hampered as they have been hampered in the past, and are still hampered in a very much less degree. 1 may be asked, are you satisfied with the distance the Liberal party have gone in the direction of removing this iniquity ? I say yes. They have gone in that respect as far as they could go under existing circumstances. 1 find no fault-none whatever. But, I say this, that protection still exists in this country in a limited degree, and I as a free trader will never be satisfied till the last vestige of that iniquity, imposed on this country by hon. gentlemen opposite, is removed. What is the use of improving our facilities for transport ? What is the use of developing our railways and our canals, if you hamper trade and do not allow those canals and railways to carry traffic inwards as well as outwards ? Why, it is perfectly ridiculous. There is no use whatever in improving the St. Lawrence route, if the conditions are such as to prevent vessels coming from England and other countries with imports which can carry away our produce in return. I refer to this point because it is incidental to the subject under discussion, and I repeat that there is no use whatever in our going on improving our waterways unless we have such freedom of trade as will enable those waterways to be used.
There is another question to which reference has been made, and that is, the Georgian Bay canal. I was a little surprised to find that my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division of Montreal (Mr. Roddick! was so large in his views. He said that the further we could go into the interior with our ships, the better for the country. But, what of Montreal in that case ? There is, perhaps, no one thing that can be done in this country that would have such a revolutionary effect upon the conditions of Canada as the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. I believe that its construction to a depth of 20 feet would make it the greatest developer of Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: Can It be done ?


William Cameron Edwards: I do not know. But, if the engineering and financial conditions per-Mr. EDWARDS.
mit of its being done, I believe that a 20-foot canal, constructed from Georgian Bay to Montreal, will be the greatest thing for Canada that could possibly be done. But, would that result in vessels loading at Georgian Bay and going across the ocean ? I think it would be, but only to a limited extent. I believe that the great carriers on the lakes would go to Montreal and Quebec, and other ports on the eastern coast, and there discharge into larger vessels. And I am further of the opinion, that such a scheme would result in an inflow of a large portion of American goods for the western states over this route, and if that should happen, the inward cargoes would be supplied. Would this detract from the importance of Montreal ? Not at all. In order that our cities throughout Canada may be developed, we require to build up our country, and I do not think there is any other means by which this country could be developed to so great an extent as by the building of this canal. To say that Montreal is going to go backwards is absurd. My candid opinion is, that Montreal will always bear the same relative position to Canada as New York does to the United States. It is bound to continue the great commercial centre of Canada, and Quebec will be the second city, with Ottawa third and Winnipeg fourth.


An hon. MEMBER.: Where is Toronto V


William Cameron Edwards: Toronto is not in it. 1 have nothing against the great city of Toronto, which is the capital of the province in which I live.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about Halifax ?


William Cameron Edwards: Well, it will come in some way, but the Georgian Bay canal, I believe, will be built ; and when it is. the result will be, in my opinion, what I have stated. I have no preference for any one city in Canada, except that if I wanted to choose a city in which to live, I would like to live in the city of Quebec. Next to that, I would like to live in Halifax.


An hon. MEMBER.: Next, Toronto.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like, before living in the city of Toronto, to have its views enlarged and its bigotry lessened. I think I have said all that I desire to say now on this question. I am anxious to see Canada developed in every possible way. I want to see the St. Lawrence route improved in every possible way, but I do not want to see an artificial channel built from Quebec to Montreal, because I believe it was never required, and is not required to-day.


Mr. DANIEL GALLERY (Montreal, St. Ann's).: I would like, Mr. Speaker, to ask the last speaker (Mr. Edwards) how it is that the city of Quebec, although it has received from the Dominion government some

$5,000,000 or $8,000,000, cannot, even with the expenditure of all this money, be made a national port ? I fail to understand the objection of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) to the improvement of the channel between Montreal and Quebec. It seems to me that the deepening of that channel is as much in the interests of the people of the west, as it is in the interests of the people of Montreal themselves. Looking over the record, I find that in the past fifteen or twenty years, the government has expended on canals and harbours throughout (this Dominion some $20,000,000, of which Montreal has never received one cent. It seems to me. therefore, high time that Montreal should take a decided stand, and insist on getting what it is entitled to. Compare the customs revenues received at that port with those received at other ports in the Dominion. In the year 1900, the revenue from customs duties alone received at Montreal, amounted to $9,000,000, whereas the customs dues received at the port of Quebec only amounted to $961,000, at Halifax, $1,252,000. and at St. John. $S97,000, or, in other words, the revenue collected in Montreal was three times as large as that of the other three ports I have mentioned.
I have no desire to detain the House by entering into a long discussion of the subject before us, after the very thorough treatment it has received at the hands of the two representatives from the city of Montreal who preceded me. It is clear that what the board of trade to-day is most interested in, is the erection of elevators, and I feel confident that this government will see the justice of their demands, and meet the views of all those who are interested in the supremacy of our great national port. I regret that one discordant note with regard to the improving of the channel between Montreal and Quebec should have been sounded by the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House (Mr. Edwards), but I have no doubt that the views in that respect to which he gave expression are not those of the great majority of hon. members, and that this House and the government will appreciate the necessity, in the interests of the whole country, of doing everything possible to improve our great national highway.


Hon. R. R. DOBELL (Quebec West).: I thought we had pretty well threshed out this question when the subject of transpor-: tation was up before the House some time ago, but I must crave the indulgence of the House if I rise to reply to some remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Gallery) and of the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division of Montreal (Mr. Roddick). The hon. gentleman who last spoke said that the government had not done anything for the port of Montreal. I was carried back a period of nearly thirty years, when the same 'question was debated
pretty warmly, not in this House, but in the Dominion Board of Trade. Among those who were present at that meeting were Hon. John Young, Hon. Thomas White, Hugh McLennan, and Mr. Cramp. I do not think that at that time you could find four abler or better representatives of the city of Montreal. These gentlemen took part in a discussion with the members from Quebec and Kingston. A resolution was moved on behalf of Quebec, which I would like to read, for it is very short, and because I happened to be there and to move this resolution. I considered at that time that it was quite worthy of consideration, and I believe that it is as worthy of consideration by this House to-day before we continue the very extravagant and costly work of deepening and widening Lake St. Peter. The resolution reads as follows :
That this board would urge the government to lose no time in carrying out the improving of the highway from the west to the ocean ; and that it is also desirable, before it is committed to any scheme for deepening Lake St. Peter, to consider whether the harbour of Quebec could not be utilized and made capable, at a comparatively small outlay, to accommodate and tranship the commodities from Europe to our western towns, and also the grain and produce of our western towns, to Europe, and also the grain and produce of the west to Europe, at a less cost and with greater economy ihan by an extensive and costly work, such as deepening Lake St. Peter.
A statement was made at that time which I think this House might well consider today. Wheat can be carried from the west to Quebec for 1 cent per bushel more than to Montreal and from Quebec to Europe for 3 cents per bushel less than from Montreal to Europe. Thus there is a saving on shipments by Quebec of 2 cents per bushel. Now, Mr. McLennan is reported as having made this very emphatic statement. He
-begged leave to correct the gentlemen from Quebec and Hamilton; he (Mr. McLennan) had already stated on this floor that Montreal did not now desire to have any public money spent for the purpose of deepening Lake St. Peter.
He was followed by Hon. John Young in a similar strain and also by Hon. Thomas White, of whom it is reported :
He discountenanced the idea of asking the government to deepen the channel through Lake St. Peter, and said if the government would grant them the power, the people of Montreal would do It themselves.


Mr. MONK.: In what year was that ?


Richard Reid Dobell: It was in 1873. Mr. White also said :
Let the Quebec people afford the facilities for doing western trade and they would get It ; and if they outstripped Montreal in the competition they would deserve their reward ; but they ought not to come to this board and ask support for a movement that was the same in principle, as that they had denounced when

asked by others. Why should they ask the government to survey the harbour of Quebec unless they were to Improve It? Why not let Quebec survey her own harbour, just as Montreal did?
I do not admit that it would be better for each harbour to improve its own advantages. But again I claim that when the hon. members from Montreal stand up and declare in this House that the government have done nothing for Montreal-not one dollar-I think that what my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence stated


Robert Bickerdike: Does the hon. gentleman contradict that statement ?


Richard Reid Dobell: Most distinctly. I point out what the Montreal delegates of that time claimed. They distinctly discon-tenanced the idea of asking the government to spend one penny in deepening Lake St. Peter. I am not going to say that I follow these gentlemen to that extreme. I have said over and over again that it is the duty of this country to widen and deepen such channels and to give every facility for bringing the largest steamers up from the ocean to Montreal if necessary, but, if it can be done at a much less cost to the whole Dominion, then I claim they should not carry it beyond the harbour of Quebec. But, if it cannot be done cheaper, if it will not be a greater advantage to the large steam barges and their consorts to come from the far west to Quebec and for the oceangoing steamers to load in Quebec than to go to Montreal-which I claim is the common sense view to take of it-we will join cordially with Montreal in having the channel deepened and widened, for we must offer to the far west every possible advantage for bringing the trade by the St. Lawrence.


William Findlay Maclean: In what condition is the harbour of Quebec to-day ? What would it require to do this trade ?


Richard Reid Dobell: It is a credit to Quebec.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it ready now to do this trade ? Are there the facilities ?


Richard Reid Dobell: Everything.


William Findlay Maclean: Elevators and everything else ?


Richard Reid Dobell: 
An hon. MEMBER.: There are two.


Richard Reid Dobell: Yes, but one is


Robert Bickerdike: No good.


Richard Reid Dobell: 


Richard Reid Dobell: No, it is a very fine elevator, but it is not situated advantageously for the winter work and we should have one differently situated ; I would build another elevator. Then, with steamers coming to Quebec, they could come to these elevators and get loaded.
One or two more points and I have done. Let me repeat that the real evil, the great reason why the St. Lawrence route is losing trade is because of the high rates of insurance on trade by this route. I say that if ever a government was warranted in taking extraordinary measures to remove a difficulty, this government should do its utmost to do away with this discrimination by the underwriters against our trade. I believe there is no more danger in going up the St. Lawrence than in going to Boston or New York. We should make all reasonable improvements. We should have the lighting of the St. Lawrence route so perfect that no creature could say that a new light is needed here or an additional signal there. We should have it as nearly perfect as possible from Belle Isle to Quebec. I am satisfied that the loss of the Scotsman would never have taken place if we had had a light on the north-east corner of Belle Isle.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Why should the hon. gentleman say that when it is contradicted by the evidence ?


Richard Reid Dobell: Because I know the advantages that a light so placed would afford.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The Scotsman was lost on account of the fog.


Richard Reid Dobell: But a light would penetrate a fog for some distance.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: How far ?


Richard Reid Dobell: I should say half a mile. However, I do not wish to get into a dispute with my colleague on these matters. But I do say that in approaching Belle Isle in a northern course you cannot see the lights there at all. I have observed it myself over and over again, and seen the danger that exists in coming on the northern passage. I do not want to make light of the improvements that have taken place. But the House must recollect that the old appliances, particularly the lighthouses, were not made for steamers going at 10 or 15 knots an hour, they were only made for sailing ships. They are a remnant of the old days. Now it is necessary at present to expend a large sum of money in fitting up strong lights, and sirens also, because wherever there is a light there should be a siren, so that if there is a fog the seamen may hear it, and if the weather is clear they may see the light. Provided with these, I be-

lieve our river will be no more dangerous for vessels coming up than for vessels going to Boston or Portland. Any one who is acquainted with the approaches to New York knows there is considerable danger of running on the flats, and steamers have run on shore going to New York. I do not mean to say that we shall ever make the St. Lawrence or any other place absolutely free from risk and danger, as risk is a natural accompaniment of danger. But I do maintain that the St. Lawrence can be made safe for navigation both in summer and winter. If we can only get steamers to come to Quebec in winter, the effect will be that instead of insurance companies raising their rates on the 1st of September, if the rates are raised at all, it will not be until November or December. September and October will naturally be looked upon as summer rates, because you can navigate the St. Lawrence up to December. I am putting that in a guarded way, supposing that the months of February and March will not be safe for ordinary steamers, and we can never have winter navigation unless it is by ordinary first-class steamers. Anything special will be a failure, you can never work winter navigation unless with our ordinary first-class tramp steamers, steamers that will class A 1 for 20 years, just ordinary heavy strongly-built steamers.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I do not understand the minister clearly. How does he intend to work this winter navigation, with special appliances or with the vessels themselves ?


Richard Reid Dobell: With the vessels themselves, anything special will kill it. 1 have no faith that we can have winter navigation if anything special is required. I will make a suggestion to my colleagues when the time comes that all we should, provide for is the payment of any extra insurance for four or five steamers that may come out and load entirely at Quebec and go back. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company tell us that if we can only secure winter navigation they will send 380,000 tons of produce out by the St. Lawrence between December and May.


An hon. MEMBER.: Does the hon. minister say that we can compete with Portland and New York in winter ?


Richard Reid Dobell: Certainly, I believe we cap. But 1 will say that we must proceed cautiously, we must make some provision beforehand. The hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), spoke of that permanent pier at the Traverse. That permanent pier renders it possible now to bring up steamers, but it was not possible before. Only three years ago a steamer came up and, not finding lightships there-because they had to be removed on account of ice-she went round to Halifax and was there discharged. This
spring three steamers came up the river before the light ships were in place, and had it not been for the permanent pier that was put there last year by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, they could not have come up, they would have had to go back. Without that permanent pier in the Traverse, I would not for a moment think of bringing up this question and dwelling upon it as I have done, both to-night and on a previous occasion.
I would like to say one word to our friends from Montreal. We in Quebec have no desire whatever to lessen their prosperity. My contention is that there is more trade than can foe accommodated at Montreal, Three Rivers, Sorel, or any other port in the river. We get a small share, we have never done more than 7 per cent of the western trade. We are willing to admit that Montreal may be a national port, but we call Quebec an international port. These two ports not only should take all the trade of this country, but they can draw the trade of the great grain-growing states of the west, such as Minnesota and Illinois, and get a share of their produce. Quebec for years was satisfied with its timber trade, but the forests are becoming depleted of their timber, and now we have got to look for something else; we are going to look for grain, and I believe that we shall carry it.


William Findlay Maclean: What about the railway rates, are they satisfactory to you ?


Richard Reid Dobell: I think we have nothing to complain of in any way, and we are going forward, we shall take our proper place as a distributing port.


Mr. GOURLEY.: What about double tracking the Intercolonial Railway and making Halifax a national port ? That is what ought to be done. The solution of the problem is not in Quebec or in Montreal, but it is in double-tracking the Intercolonial Railway, reducing the rates, and taking the trade to Halifax.


Richard Reid Dobell: Well, I shall not say anything against helping Halifax, and Sydney, and perhaps one or two other ports in Nova Scotia, because the whole country will benefit from it. But, as I said before, the only fault I can find with my colleagues is that they have not spent enough in that direction, they should have spent more money instead of less.
Now, I would like to say one word about the iee-!brifl,ge. The hon. member for St. Lawrence division stated that he hoped the government would take means to break the ice-bridge and not allow it to take at Cap Rouge. I am quite certain that when the piers of the bridge at Quebec are planted, there will be an ice-bridge formed very early in the season; but that ice-bridge, instead of being an impediment or a drawback, will on the contrary enable us to have

navigation up to Montreal earlier in the spring than we did before, and why ? If you do not get an ordinary ice-bridge you get later what we call a jam-bridge. That bridge which is formed at Cap Rouge to-day is formed of the ice coming down the river all the way from Three Rivers, when large battures, at high t de are carried down the river and it goes up again with the next tide, and it follows this course all winter going up and down the river until a very low tide with strong easterly winds causes these masses of ice to jam at Cap Rouge and piles up 80 feet thick. I think I said 60 feet the last time I spoke, but I did so because some one said 60 feet and some one said 40. It was something like the story of the foxes' tails. Well, as it is so near six o'clock. I will keep the story of the foxes' tails for another occasion.
I will only say this and I have done, that when the natural bridge forms the ice is never more than four or five feet thick and that bridge across the river prevents drifting ice in great masses going down into the harbour and being sent floating up and down. After the bridge has formed early in the season our harbour is free of ice ia winter. The channel is quite free. Tim batture ice forms along the wharfs and coves and it is a great safeguard ; other wise, the ice moving down from up the river in the stream with such force that it woliM carry away every wharf in the harbour, but the batture ice forms a sort of guide-way for it. The ice on both sides of the stream is polished quite smooth for miles from Cap Rouge to where it leaves Quebec and makes for the Island of Orleans, but a jam bridge remains much longer and resists all effort to mine it. I would like to have said more but it being six o'clock I will reserve the balance for another occasion.
At six o'clock the House took reeess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. HEYD.: Mr. Speaker, I would like If the House would permit Bill (No. 120) respecting the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada to get its second reading. It is the only one on the Order paper, and I am a little afraid that the hour will expire before we may possibly reach it. It is a matter of considerable importance, because it will have to hang up about eight days before it can reach the committee. If the House will consent to take order No. 54 and let it go through, I will be very much obliged to hon. members.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With the unanimous consent of the House we will take order No. 54.


Richard Reid Dobell: 


Charles Bernhard Heyd: That Bill No. 120 respecting the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada he read the second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 41) respecting the Saskatchewan and Western Railway Company.-Mr. LaRivitSre.
Bill (No. 52) respecting the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Company.-Mr. Maxwell.
Bill (No. 56) respecting the Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Galliher.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 44) respecting the Ottawa and Gatineau Railway Company, and to change its name to ' The Ottawa, Gatineau and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Champagne.
On section 6,
William Cameron Edwards: I gave expression to my views on this clause in the committee, and I desire to repeat them now to this House. I do not think it is the business of a railway company to go into the acquisition of mines and timber limits and things of that sort, and my intention is to test the opinion of the House on this clause. This is a railway which at the present time extends sixty miles up the Gatineau river, and it is suggested to continue it to James Bay. I believe, in fact, that a charter has already been given for that purpose, This railway company has made two or three attempts already, in amendments to their railway charter, to get provision to enable them to become possessors of water powers, of timber limits, and of mines, that they might deal therein. In so far as a railway company may acquire timber or mines for the construction of their railway, I find no fault with that whatever. Railway companies must necessarily get from parliament great powers of expropriation, and being as they are common carriers, I claim that they have no right whatever to engage in commerce and manufacture and compete with concerns already established in such industries. That is the principle of the opposition which I offered to the present Bill. In giving a railway power to manufacture timber for the purpose of the construction of their railway, that does not all necessitate the railway company dealing in timber limits, but I can see no reason why, so far as the construction of a railway is concerned, the company should have power to deal in mines.

I ask the committee to consider this question as to whether it is right and proper that this company should have the powers that it is proposed to give them under this Bill.


John Graham Haggart: Is there not a limitation to the company doing this for the purpose of its railway and its business ?


William Cameron Edwards: I do uot consider that the limitation covers the ground at all. The provision is that for the purposes of the railway and its business, the company may acquire timber limits and mines and buy and sell these properties and may deal in them. It may think that for the purposes of its business it should go into manufacturing, and then if any one wished to pursue the matter, they would have to bring the case into the courts to determine whether they had such power _or not.


John Graham Haggart: I would like to hear the chairman of the Railway Committee on that point.


Hon.   S@: The hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is quite right. All the powers referred to by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) which were applied for originally in the charter, have been removed, and the powers under clause 0 are limited in connection with the railway and the purposes of its business. My hon. friend (Mr. Edwards seems to think that the expression ' business of the company,' would enable it to go into lumbering, other than for the purpose of the undertaking which would be to get material for the construction of the road. Personally, I do not think there is anything in that contention. There would be no objection to use the word ' undertaking ' instead of ' business ' if any hon. member thinks it material that the change should be made. As the Bill has been amended there is not the slightest doubt, from the experience we have had, that the powers granted under clause 6 are limited to the purposes of the railway company. Further than that, in this particular Bill, as it was contended that the company might have for the purposes named in this clause, the powers of expropriation under the Railway Act, the Bill was amended so as to make it clear, that the powers of expropriation would not apply under clause 6. There is that further special protection incorporated in this Bill.


William Cameron Edwards: Might I ask that the clause be again read to the House V
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Flint) read the clause.


William Cameron Edwards: The intention of the promoters of this Bill is to get from the government certain timber limits as a bonus for the construction of this road, and the wording of that clause is devised exactly
for the purpose of allowing them to go into the manufacture of lumber and pulp or anything they may require to do. It is very cunningly devised. I see through the whole scheme. I understand it well.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: That has been struck out.	.


William Cameron Edwards: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, it has not. The acquisition of timber limits is not struck out.


The CHAIRMAN.: No, that is not struck out.


Mr. DAVIS.: I think we could easily put in something that would satisfy the member for Russell.


Mr. COCHRANE.: We are not here to satisfy ; we are here to legislate.


Mr. BRITTON.: I think the hon. member for Russell is unduly cautious in a matter of this kind. The distinction he draws between railway corporations and trading corporations is one which, of course, ought to be maintained in granting companies charters ; but, when the privileges asked by this company are limited, as they are to some extent, by the use of the words ' for the use of the company and in connection with its business,' it seems to me that the rights of individuals who may be engaged in business of that kind are sufficiently guarded. But that is not all. The right of expropriation ha-s been thought necessary to be given to railway companies, so long as they make ample compensation so as not to do injustice to any parties ; but, that right is not granted to this company in connection with these particular matters. As it has no right to expropriate, but only a right to hold property when it gets it by purchase, I fail to see the objection which the hon. member for Russell so strenuously presses on the House. Moreover, I think we have in other instances granted powers just as ample as those proposed to be granted to this company. Therefore, I hope the hon. member for Russell will withdraw his objection.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think there is, perhaps, something in the point which the hon. gentleman takes, which deserves a little consideration, and it is this. I do not think the object obtained by my hon. friend the chairman of the Railway Committee has been so thoroughly carried out as to remove doubts that the Expropriation Act does not apply. I do not think it is good drafting to use the word ' business ' in one place and the word ' undertaking ' in other places in the Bill. I would also suggest that instead of saying that ' nothing in this section shall be held to confer powers of expropriation under the Railway Act.' the section read : ' nothing in this Act contained shall be held to confer on the company any powers of

expropriation for any purposes or objects contained in this section.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not tliink the Expropriation Act applies at all to this section, even without these words. The intention of the committee was perfectly clear that the clause in the Railway Act giving power of expropriation should not apply to the powers granted in this section. So, I think the wording in the Bill, as it is before the committee, or the wording suggested by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, will be perfectly satisfactory.
Bill reported, amendments agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.



THE KOOTENAY AND ARROW HEAD RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 58) to incorporate the Kootenay and Arrow Head Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
On section 13 :
Robert Franklin Sutherland: This clause was ordered to be drafted by the clerk of the committee, and it is the usual clause granted in railway charters with regard to all the powers mentioned, except the power of owning and operating smelters and reduction works. After discussion, tiie majority of the committee seemed to think that in that country it is not objectionable that a railway should have this power. Otherwise the clause is the usual one adopted for a number of years in railway charters.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I do not think that railway corporations should be allowed to operate smelters. They should be confined to their work as common carriers. It appears to me that being common carriers they should lie confined to that business. If you give them power to carry on smelters in British Columbia, you will find it difficult to get outside capitalists to put money into the smelting business. I think the clause should be struck out.


Mr. MAXWELL.: Those who understand the conditions that prevail in that country know that it is one of the most difficult things to get men to take up the smelting business. The Canadian Pacific Railway have been a benefit to that country because they have gone into the smelting business. When they took possession of the Trail smelter, they reduced the prices, greatly to the advantage of the mine-owners. If they go into it again, it will be to the advantage of the country.


Mr. CHARLTON.: I fear that we are falling into the habit of endowing railway com-Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
panies that we charter with almost unlimited power, and thus laying the foundation for trouble in the future. As my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) says, a railroad is a common carrier, and it is in the public interest, in my opinion, to confine railroads as nearly as possible to their legitimate business. If railroads are to acquire timber limits, manufacture lumber, engage in mining and run smelters, the tendency and probably the result will be that the railroads will use the powers that are given them as common carriers to favour their own enterprises. It may be that under special circumstances a railroad may erect a smelter and the business may thus be started earlier than it otherwise would be. But there will hardly be any other introduction of capital for that purpose within the radius of that railroad's operation. The effect will be to deter capitalists from embarking in the same business, and in the end will thus be disastrous to the mining interests of the country in which the railroad operates.


John Graham Haggart: Does the power of expropriation apply to the mines or anything of that kind ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not think so. I have no doubt that they must acquire mines just as individuals do.


John Graham Haggart: The last Bill of this kind that I remember had a special clause added, that the expropriation powers should not apply to anything but the railroad. I have not heard of any such exception in this Bill.


Thomas Osborne Davis: There are no mines mentioned in the Act as amended.


John Graham Haggart: That does not matter. You incorporate a company here, and the important thing is to know whether the expropriation powers apply to the other undertakings besides the railway.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: There was a short discussion of this clause in the committee. I adhere to the view that I then took. The contention in support of the measure was the same as that brought forward by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Maxwell), that this was desirable, as it would encourage smelting, and that it would not be done if the railways were not allowed to do it. That is not satisfactory, to my mind. If the railway people desire to participate in smelting, they can form commercial companies for the purpose. I would not like to hamper any railway company in this connection, but I believe that as common carriers it is not desirable that they should carry ores from their own smelters in competition with smelters belonging to other companies. I would support the view taken by the hon. gentleman from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and the hon. gentleman from

North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and would urge that this clause he dropped.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I understand that they have no power under the Bill to go into mining.


John Graham Haggart: Then, 1 have misunderstood the effect of the Bill.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: There is no doubt that this company has no expropriation powers except as regards their railway. The case mentioned by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) was one in which the company applying have had many amendments to their charter during a series of years, and when their solicitor was asked whether their expropriation powers would apply to their other enterprises, he would not commit himself. Therefore, the committee Insisted on putting in a special clause to make sure. The company now under discussion did not ask for expropriation powers relating to a smelter, and we did not give them.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: I would not like to give an opinion one way or another from a mere hasty glancing at the Bill. But, the railway is incorporated with power to build the railway between certain points, and as part of the undertaking certain other powers are added. If they have general powers of expropriation, and these undertakings are not excepted, would not the expropriation power apply to these undertakings ? I give no opinion myself.


David Tisdale: No ; if the hon. gentleman will look at the Railway Act he will see that the expropriation powers are restricted to certain named things, such as acquiring right of way, acquiring station grounds, and so on.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman is much better acquainted with the Railway Act than I am, and I would not give my opinion as against his. But, this new company gets powers, and a part of its undertaking is to purchase smelters and other properties If these become part of the undertaking, would not the expropriation apply ?


David Tisdale: No, as I say the powers of expropriation are strictly limited. Under the old Railway Act they could not even expropriate a gravel pit, but this was extended, because it was thought necessary in order to enable them to construct. So far as smelters are concerned, these people will have power only to buy the same as any individual.


Thomas Osborne Davis: My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smith), as he comes from British Ccl'unbia, should know more about this
industry than people who live at a distance from the mining regions. It appears to me that by allowing that clause to go into the charter, if there is any independent smelter in British Columbia, it will place them at the mercy of the Canadian Pacific Railway corporation. That corporation is' practically the only carrier in that country, and having control'of all the carrying trade, they will be able to build smelters of their own, and cut down the prices to such an extent that an independent smelter could not live.


George Ritchie Maxwell: We have got one smelter at Grand Forks and one at Nelson, both independent and private smelters. I have yet to hear the first objection ever made in British Columbia with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway owning the Trail smelter. I think we all regard it as one of the best things the Canadian Pacific Railway ever did for British Columbia when they became owners of that smelter.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I did not wish to say they have done this in the past, but I say that in the future, if they want to exercise the power that is given them under that proposition, they can freeze out any independent smelting industry in British Columbia.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to what appears to me a doubt about section 11, which says that the company shall have powers for the expropriation of land.


David Tisdale: All the expropriation clauses have been struck out.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The point in my mind did not arise from the absence of those words, but there was a question whether the expropriation powers would not inherently apply to purposes which you made part of the railway undertaking without an expressed provision that they should apply.


David Tisdale: The object of putting in the expropriation clause there was to give them that power, but the committee struck it out on the understanding that the clauses of the General Railway Act should apply which only gives them special powers. But none of these are in the general powers of the Railway Aqt.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but I was referring to the remark made by the hon. member for Lanark that the House was so impressed with the doubt that they put in the negative words, that these powers should not apply to the purposes of the undertaking.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Some members raised the point whether some of these Acts did not give powers for expropriating for the purposes mentioned in that clause.

X do not think it was because there was any doubt in the mind of any person who was familiar with the Railway Act that under this clause they could exercise the powers of expropriation at all. I think that no member of the committee who is familiar with the 'Railway Act, either a lawyer or a layman, would for a moment thiuk that this particular company would have power under this present Act to expropriate for the purposes mentioned in it, as the hon. member for Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) has so clearly pointed out.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE W. C. EDWARDS COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. Cl) respecting W. C. Edwards Company (Limited).-Mr. Rosamond.
On the preamble,
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think it fair to call the attention of the committee to the departure which has been made in this Bill and in the Bill next following, from the practice that has hitherto prevailed. It may be all right, and probably the committee may approve of it, but I think it my duty to call their attention to it. The original charter of the W. C. Edwards Company (Limited) enabled them to acquire, hold and deal with the shares of any boom or river improvement company, and the new addition to the Act which we now have before us, provided that they should not only have that power but they should also have power to acquire, hold, deal with and dispose of the shares in any other company any of whose powers were within the scope of this company incorporated. Now, in the Bills introduced in the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee there is no limitation of the powers given to companies at all. Industrial companies have omnibus powers, and so the effect of this Bill now before us is to give this company or any other company power to deal with the shares of all industrial companies of any kind or description. That may be good or bad policy, but it is an entire departure from the policy adopted heretofore. There were objections taken in the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee, and a restriction was adopted to the effect that the powers shall not be exercised unless the shareholders at a special meeting authorize it.


John Graham Haggart: I think it is the duty of the government to have some policy with reference to this matter, and to lead the House in the direction in which they think we should go in regard to private Bill legislation. If the clause is so objectionable as the minister says it is, he should announce the policy of the government in reference to it. The clauses which are in


James Sutherland: this Bill are precisely the same, and give no greater powers than the clauses we have adopted in preceding Bills. If they are objectionable, and I think perhaps there is some foundation for the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, he should be in a position to guide the House.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My hon. friend is asking me to go a little further than any minister ever attempted to do before. This is private Bill legislation, I spoke as a member of the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee. Personally I thought it was a mistake to take this new departure, but a majority of the committee thought differently, they did take this departure. The government has no special policy in the matter, it is a matter for the House to determine as they please. But I thought it my duty to call the attention of the committee to the departure which the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee recommended ; having done that, I have discharged my duty. I have not stated any serious objection to it. My objection taken in the committee was this, that under the new legislation which we have adopted, a company might be incorporated for lumbering purposes, and buy a controlling interest in every industrial company in Canada. That was my objection. It did not prevail in the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee. The committee, by a large majority, thought I was wrong, but the government had no policy in the matter. It was only my own individual opinion.


William Findlay Maclean: This is a new doctrine which is laid down by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies). The government of the day are responsible for all legislation that goes through the House, and if a Bill is going through this House prejudicial to the public interest it is the duty of the government to protect the public interest. But, the Liberal government do not believe in that. They are abandoning the protection of the public interest, not only here but at Toronto, and in every other legislature in which they have a majority. We intends to hold the government responsible. As to this particular measure I have no opinion of my own but the doctrine laid down by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that the government are not responsible for private legislation that goes through the House, and that it is not the duty of the government to protect Die public interest is a bad doctrine that Should never be enunciated by a government that made such professions as this government have made.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My hon. friend is altogether mistaken. I never laid down the doctrine that it was not the duty of the government to protect the public interest.

Mr, MACLEAN. The hon. gentleman says he has no opinion in regard to the public interest.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I merely thought 1 was discharging my duty in calling the attention of this committee to the fact that there had been a departure from the practice hitherto adopted in tho Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee. That departure I did not approve of. A large majority of the committee did approve of it, and the government did not take any part in the matter.


William Findlay Maclean: You should have.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The government is not going to take part in every bit of private legislation that goes through the House.


William Findlay Maclean: The government must protect the public interest.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The moment the amendment was adopted that this power should not be exercised until two-thirds of the shareholders approved of it I said no more.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that it is a matter of public interest. We are changing entirely the direction of private legislation. This is not a matter of indifference. We are deciding the question as to whether industrial companies can go into any business at all connected with their original enterprise and we have already decided that railway companies can go into mining and lumbering when it is necessary to carry on their enterprise. My own personal opinion is favourable to this particular Bill, but I think this is a point upon which we ought to have the policy of the government. It is a very grave innovation. It is something entirely new as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) has said. It touches the public policy of the country and we are entitled) to know what the position of the government is in view of future questions of this kind that may arise.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The policy of the government is that it is not going to interfere with the action of the House on a Bill of this kind at all, but to let the committee of this House adopt the amendment or reject it as it pleases. It is not a matter so important or grave that a public policy should be adopted and pronounced upon it. It is simply a departure from the practice of the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee. The committee have never given to industrial companies the right to deal in the shares of other companies. You have provided in the statute law of the country what the policy of the country is on that question. So far as loan companies are concerned they are not permitted to deal in the shares
of other companies, so far as banks are concerned they are not permitted to deal in the shares of other banks, and so far as industrial companies are concerned they are not permitted to deal in the shares of other companies unless the special Act of incorporation gives them that power. In this case the special Act of incorporation gives them that power with the limitation that two-thirds of the shareholders must approve of it.


William Findlay Maclean: The other day, in Quebec, the city of Montreal was raided of a lot of its rights by a powerful corporation there. When the Prime Minister of Quebec was called to account, all he had to say was : I did not know such a Bill was going through, but at the next session of legislature I may repeal it, or I may call a special session to repeal it. Ho abandoned the public interest. He was there to protect the municipal rights of Montreal for the protection of which the government were responsible. It was a confession of weakness on their part that they did not protect the public interest. The same doctrine is being laid down here to-night by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I do not see any danger


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Flint).: The hour lias expired.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-THE TRANSPORTATION QUESTION.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed debate on the motion of Hon. Mr. Fielding that the House go again into Committee of iSupply.
['To-morrow.']
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, the question which is brought to the attention of the House this afternoon is one which has often engaged the attention of the House. I have heard it discussed several times since I have had the honour of a seat in this. House and every time I have noticed that there has been an increase in the intensity of interest manifested in the study of the question. I think it was particularly fortunate that the question, at the present moment, should be brought to the attention of the House during this first session and brought, as it has been, by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike), a man closely connected with the shipping interests, familiar with the question, who has given it great study, who has such singular opportunities of becoming familiar with it, and who has, I think, treated it in such a manner as to engage the serious attention of the House and the country. I. may add that I think it fortunate that he has been upheld in the view which he laid before the House by the hon. member for St. Antoine division (Mr. COMMONS
Roddick), who represents, I tliink, tlie most important, or if not, one of tlie most important constituencies in tiiis Dominion, one deeply interested in the question of transportation. I may also add that for my part I listened to liim, as I am sure did many other lion, members of this House, with particular pleasure when he treated the phase of the question which concerns the hydrographic survey, a subject upon which his high scientific qualifications entitle him to speak with authority. But, as soon as these two hon. gentlemen had spoken, we had proof of a divergence of views amongst hon. members of this House. We heard one hon. gentleman who sits on the foremost seat on the opposite side of the House express his dissent from the views and from the doctrines expressed by the two hon. gentlemen who had preceded' him. We heard, Sir, an hon. minister of the Crown, the hon. member for Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell) take exception in very formal terms to the proposition that we should expend any more money in deepening, and, as far as I could understand, improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence above the city of Quebec. I have no doubt that before this debate is closed we will hear other opinions diverging equally from the opinions to which I have just referred, But, Sir, let us remember that while we have been discussing and examining this question with very little practical result during the past five or six years the enemy is really at our doors. We have to the south of us a population with whom it is very difficult for us to compete, men of immense practical ability, of untiring ambition, of immense wealth, having control of untold financial resources who are acting while we are speaking, and I venture to say that the proportion of the western trade which we are so desirous of securing and of which we have such a small percentage at the present moment, will gradually diminish and dwindle to nothing unless we pass from words to deeds and unless we take active steps and that as soon as possible to secure a far larger proportion of that trade. I venture the opinion that in the face of the rivals against whom we have to cope, if we had not the assistance of nature the struggle to which the hon. member (Mr. Bickerdike) has invited us would be almost hopeless. Not only in the United States but all over the world we find rivals in trade, and these countries have given the question of transportation far more intelligent study and practical application and with far greater effective results than has Canada. Look at the Argentine Republic. Look at the admirable manner in which they have progressed towards the solution of this transportation question. Have not our cousins at the antipodes, the New Zealanders and the Australians, have they not reached a far more advanced stage in the solution of this question than we have. It is only a night or two ago than in strains


Frederick Debartzch Monk: of great, and as I think unjustified self-laudation-I say it without giving to this question in any sense a political colour, because it has none-we heard the Minister of Agriculture, when he asked us to vote $140,000 for cold storage, declaring that that question was in a satisfactory condition. That hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fisher) who a few days ago refused to classify even a tomato, is apparently very ignorant of what is being done in those countries to which I have referred. And when I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in our contracts with the ship-owners we had secured such a low degree of temperature as zero, that homy handed minister informed me that I knew nothing about the question, and he ventured the assertion, clearly unfounded, that a temperature of 29 or 30 degrees was all that was required for the transportation of meats. If that hon. minister will look at the New Zealand yearbook which my hon. and esteemed friend from Victoria (Mr. Ross) placed upon the Table of this House, and if he looks at an article in this paper on the New Zealand frozen mutton trade, he will find that no temperature less than eight degrees above zero is tolerated in that trade. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) was entirely mistaken, and when the New Zealander referred to by Macaulay crosses the seas, he will, I fear, find something else to sketch than the broken arches of London bridge.
But, Sir. to return to this question upon which I wish to be as brief as possible, I venture the assertion that we must without any delay whatever apply ourselves to its solution if we wish to get any practical results, and to secure that share of the immense western traffic to which we are entitled. First and foremost, we must free the canals. This will involve considerable sacrifice on our part. It will involve a loss of revenue of some $200,000 a year, but we must be prepared not only to bend our intellectual resources towards the study of this question, but we' must put our hands in our pockets and make large financial sacrifices if we are to succeed. We must free the canals. For my part I believe, as I am sure many of the members of the House do, that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the Georgian Bay canal scheme, which has been so often discussed and towards the accomplishment of which so very little has been done. I believe that canal will develop to an immense degree that portion of the country which is now called New Ontario, and in which there are immense natural resources. It will shorten by three hundred miles the route from the west to the seaboard.


John Graham Haggart: Three hundred and eighty-seven miles.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Three hundred and eighty-seven miles as my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) remarks. I believe, Sir, that there

will be in the future sufficient trade to make that waterway remunerative, while at the same time no injury will be done to the existing canals. Then after the canals, we have the port of Montreal to consider, and it seems to me that the port of Montreal should be properly equipped without any delay whatever. I have understood it to be the sense of this House in the last parliament, that Montreal was to be considered our national port, as it should be. I did not understand from any of the remarks of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence (Mr. Bicker-dike) or my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Roddick) that there was any idea to discriminate against Quebec. I believe with the hon. gentleman from Quebec West (Hon. Mr. Dobell) that there is a great future in store for the port of Quebec. It ihas a splendid harbour and a great back country : there is a great country to the south of Quebec with vast agricultural resources, and I have no doubt that the port of Quebec will continue to grow in importance. It must remain an important port at any rate, if that city becomes the garrison town contemplated and sighed for by my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Chariton). But. Sir, we must not forget that Montreal is at the head of ocean navigation, that it has an immense shipping trade at the present time, the largest in the country, and without insisting too much upon the admitted principle that the further ships penetrate inland, the cheaper the transportation, we have always considered that Montreal was entitled to national support as the national outlet for our products. At the present time the harbour improvement works at Montreal proceed too slowly. Why is it that there has been so much delay. I ventured the opinion the other day that the transportation question was too great a one to be confined to the intellectual resources, however great they may be, of a single man. At Montreal we encountered this difficulty. We have to deal with the harbour commissioners ; we have to deal with the Minister of Public Works ; we haw to deal with the Minister of Marine as regards lights and signals in the river ; we have to deal with the Customs Department, and we have to deal with the Department of Railways and Canals. I state here that if the improvements in the port of Montreal have not advanced more rapidly, the delay is due in a large measure to the divided authority of these different bodies to which I have referred. I have no hesitation also in saying that the delay is due in great part to clashing between the members of the government, possibly between the Minister of Public Works and some of his colleagues, and, clashing with the harbour board of Montreal. There has been clashing-the Minister of Public Works will not deny it- between himself and the harbour board in respect to these improvements and the way they ought to be carried out. The min102
ister does not deny it, and we have the proof that there is not complete accord in the government on the matter. How can we expect to make the port of Montreal what it should be, a port capable of competing with the great American ports, if we have, among the parties upon whom rests the responsibility of carrying out those improvements and placing that port upon the proper footing, such clashing as I have alluded to.
I have no hesitation in saying, for my own part, that if the Minister of Public Works had been alone concerned with those improvements, whatever might be said against some of his ideas or some of the plans he approved of, there would have been quicker progress; we would not have that port in the unsatisfactory condition in which it stands to-day; and we would not have- what is to my mind, grave as it is in itself, merely an indication of what is going on everywhere-the business of the Grand Trunk Railway transferred from Montreal to Portland. I do not blame that company. We have benefited the Grand Trunk Railway Company extraordinarily. We have conferred upon it, in connection with the H-olongation of the Intercolonial to Montreal, great favours; but we have not provided for what might have been anticipated; and the consequence is that the managers of that company, who were bound first and foremost to look to the interests of the shareholders, finding the port of Montreal an impossible port, felt it necessary to go to a country where greater facilities are afforded. Let me give you an instance. It is a well-known fact, for it has been tested, that the capacity at Montreal for moving grain is
4,000	bushels an hour or thereabouts, whereas at Duluth grain is moved at the rate of over 195,000 bushels in 155 minutes; and we cannot doubt that at the American seaboard there are equal facilities. In view of the existing state of things at Montreal, and the dangers of navigation and the high rates for insurance and freight below Montreal, there is no reason for astonishment if we find our share of the carrying trade removed to the neighbouring country. And, Sir, as evidencing the application to" the solution of this important question of the homely saying that too many cooks spoil the soup, and that there are too many charged with the solution of this question-some who have not the knowledge and others who have not the time-one of the principal accusations brought by the organ of the Minister of Public Works was precisely that clashing between the ideas of the Minister of Public Works and the ideas of other people holding control over that port. This is what La Patrie, in its article of the 2nd of April, says :
As soon as the Liberal party in 1S96-7 arrived in power, Mr. Laurier and his colleagues immediately set to work to study the question of the improvement of the port of Montreal; and



Mr. Tarte particularly brought to this problem a zeal, an energy, and an intelligence which everybody recognizes in him. Nevertheless, since four years, the efforts of the Minister of Public Works have invariably been stopped by the Tories on the harbour board and by certain Conservative organs of the opposition.
What those organs are, I do not know.
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. I have nothing to do with that article.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the non. minister disown this statement of the case ?
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. Well, I believe there is a great deal of exaggeration in that article.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There may be; bnt still the very words of the minister uphold my proposition that there are too many concerned in the solution of this question. Further on, the article says :
We would now have vast grain elevators in Montreal if the opposition, helped by a portion
of the harbour board

I may say that, so far as I am aware, in that rather numerous body there are only two Conservatives, if there are so many


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: When was that printed ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This I take from the Montreal Gazette of May 7th, 1885.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: But the hon. gentleman is aware that the whole tide of system has been revolutionized since then. '


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am not aware that the hydrographic surveys of any great importance has ever been carried on. The gentlemen who gave evidence are not aware, judging by the observations they made which seemed to confirm pretty exactly what is stated in this report. This report, which is signed by Mr. Johnson, secretary of the committee, afterwards chairman, mentions other points as follows :
(a) The wreck lists, published annually by the Department of Marine, calling attention to the losses under ' tides ' and ' unknown currents '

(which latter are most probably tidal currents, since these which shift with the tide have never been fully Investigated	
(b) The general testimony of practical navigators as to the Atlantic coast accompanying this memorial	
2.	The heavy annual loss to the trade of the
Dominion	
3.	That the requisite knowledge can be obtained, and that the stage of navigation here is in this respect, behind what exists elsewhere	
4.	The cost will be but trifling in proportion
to the great gain to the country from the diminution in the number of wrecks	
6. An additional incentive may be found in the fact that Canada while acting directly for her own interests in doing what is simply necessary for the navigation of Canadian waters, will at the same time be taking some share in common with other civilized countries in the advance of science.
The document should be examined by any member of the House who takes any interest in the question. In an interview with the underwriters in which I bad the advantage of assisting, the government stated that if the improvements-and they are not so very costly-suggested by that deputation were made, inevitably the rates of insurance would go down.
Now, one word more and I have finished. There is no doubt when we come to this question of transportation, we must be prepared for some sacrifice of money. I believe, however, after the experience I have had on the floor of this House, that we must be prepared to bring to bear upon our ordinary annual expenditure, a greater degree of caution and a determination to pare off a great deal of useless expenditure. We voted last night, If I mistake not, $125,000 for the maintenance of these buildings which surround us. 1 ventured the opinion then, and I hold it still that that is a greatly exaggerated expenditure, and if we were to adopt a proper system we could reduce that by at least half. The same remark applies to a great deal of expenditure that we make annually. In regard to local improvements also, we were engaged last night in voting large sums for minor local works calculated, I venture to say, mainly to satisfy local demands for public buildings, for breakwaters, for wharfs, and so on, in certain counties. I am not prepared to deny that these works are of use, though I question very much whether, in the majority of cases, they are useful in proportion to the amount voted. But, important as these works may be, we must be prepared in the face of the urgency of this question to curtail these expenditures. We must educate public opinion to understand that, in the case, for instance, of a public building, people must be patient and we must be prepared to vote a larger amount of money to the solution of a question which is of interest to the country at large. In my own county-and no doubt the same is true of many other constituencies-there are a large Mr. MONK.
number of public works that would be useful. But, useful as they might be locally they would be of no use as compared with the immense general benefit which would be derived from a large or at any rate a sufficient expenditure for the solution of this question. Sir, 1 believe that if the question is examined as it should be, and if proper propositions are made to us by the government in the direction of its solution on this side of the House, there will be no opposition to anything that would put us in a position to compete properly with our American neighbour. And I believe that the hon. minister without portfolio (Mr. Dobell) should do a little more than what he told us of this afternoon. We have not only to develop a great system of transportation here, but it is time and high time 1 venture to say that this government should give its attention to the fast Atlantic service. For instance, whatever may be said, and whatever we may do to improve the carrying trade from the west to the seaboard, unless that question of a fast Atlantic service has prompt and effective attention, we shall still remain behind our American neighbours and our other competitors.


John Charlton: I can unite with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) very heartily in saying that the question now under discussion is one of very great importance to Canada. The subject of the selection of the best ocean port is a matter that relates very intimately to our success in the carrying' trade; and the relative advantages of Quebec, Montreal and other ports should receive careful consideration. The decision arrived at with reference to the matter will be one of very great moment to this Dominion. The discussion upon the question so far, has been with the exception of one speaker engaged in by what, perhaps, may be properly termed special advocates of the respective interests of two great seaports. The claims of Montreal have been very ably presented by my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike), the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Roddick) and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). The claims for Quebec have been presented by a member of the Privy Council (Hon. Mr. Dobell). I rise now as an impartial observer without the slightest local prejudice or feeling with regard to this matter to present certain views to this House with reference to this question which strikes me as having pertinence and force. It is true that, if Montreal is the proper ocean port for this Dominion, large appropriations should be made. It is true that the character of that port, the appliances for the handling of business should be made more efficient; and, if it is to be the great entrepot of Canadian commerce, no time should be lost in placing the port in a position that my hon. friend from Jacques

Cartier (Mr. Monk) urged tliat it should be placed in. If, on tlie contrary, Montreal is not the most eligible and advantageous point for seeking to centre the seaboard business for this Dominion, then, whatever point may be selected should receive due and efficient attention from this government. It strikes me, in listening to this debate, that the advocates of the claims of Montreal have unconsciously perhaps, but in a most powerful manner presented to this House the disadvantages of that port and the difficulties under which it labours. I have not heard anybody refer to the advantages of Quebec, but those advantages, so far as the port itself is concerned, are self-evident. Quebec is properly at the head of ocean navigation. Quebec has unlimited facilities for the transaction of business. It has a magnificent anchorage, it has room for the navies of the world, it has room for wharfs, and docks, and warehouses without limit, to an extent to accommodate if necessary the commerce of this entire continent. It has always surprised me that the natural advantages of Quebec had not secured for that port greater consideration than it has received. I do not desire by any means to take a position here as an advocate of either of these great seaports. My feelings are exactly the same towards the one as the other. They are both splendid cities, with magnificent natural features, two of the finest points on this continent. My best ' wishes go out to each of them, but as a Canadian, I desire to consider what in the interest of the whole country is the proper course to pursue with regard to the selection of the port which is to be considered and made, so far as the Dominion government can make it, the port of the Dominion.
Now, my hon. friend from St. Lawrence division told us this afternoon that when the St. Lawrence canals were completed Montreal would handle 100,000.000 bushels of American grain ; and when the Georgian Bay canal is completed Montreal would handle 300,000,000 bushels of American grain. He reminded me of rather an optimistic estimate made in this House some years ago by Sir Charles Tupper, who estimated that about the present date there would be 040.000,000 bushels of wheat raised in the Canadian North-west. These calculations as to the prospective growth of business are always somewhat unreliable, and it is not well to pay too much attention to them.
We have to consider in the first place the relative advantages and the relative disadvantages of the various routes that are seeking to obtain the trade of the great west. As my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has said, the competition in this respect is exceedingly keen, and he pointed to the fact that our neighbours to the south of us have command of unlimited amounts of capital, have great industrial energy, and are using their utmost efforts
to secure this trade. Well, the truth is that they are enjoying the great bulk of this trade, and have been doing so for many years past. Montreal. I believe, has never received more than 15 per cent of the western trade, and the question for us to consider now is how shall we make inroads upon this trade, and how shall we divert from American channels a percentage of the commerce that they now enjoy.
Now, at the outset, if we are to make a fair consideration of this question, we will find that the advantages possessed by American routes are very great. In the first place, they all terminate at seaports that are open summer and winter, in which the channels of communication are open for a somewhat longer time than our own channels of communication by water. Buffalo, at the foot of the great lakes, receives all the grain from the whole enormous coast of six great inland seas, at freight rates, as a rule, not above 2 cents per bushel. From Buffalo grain can be transported to New York at a very low rate. It is said to be a fact that the New York Central road can carry grain from Buffalo to New York for 50 cents a ton, or 24 cents per hundred, and leave a tolerably fair margin for profits. If this is the case, with freights of one and a quarter and one and a half, seldom more than one and three-quarter cents, per bushel from Duluth, or Chicago, to Buffalo, and 'with these low rates to the port of New York where grain reaches a point where the port is open summer and winter, where there is always a great supply of vessels, where ocean freights are lower than from Montreal, where insurance is lower, where everything makes to the advantage of that port, I say under these conditions we have got a herculean task before us to secure any considerable portion of that trade. It becomes, therefore, all the more necessary carefully to consider the best methods for doing this thing, and the best port to select, to consider what are the means we should mse for the purpose of securing the trade we desire to secure.
Now, we are told that we want the Georgian Bay canal. Well, the Georgian Bay canal would be a desirable thing, the Georgian Bay canal would serve many useful purposes, but I am very doubtful whether it would to any considerable extent reduce the cost of freight upon grain from the western lakes to the Canadian seaboard. A year ago the Booth road transported 11.000,000 bushels of wheat from Depot Harbour to Montreal, and a great portion of that wheat was carried from Chicago or from Duluth to Montreal for three and three-quarter cents per bushel. Now, to what extent are you likely to reduce that cost of transportation by the construction of the Georgian Bay canal ? This Booth road could lay that wheat down in Quebec for just a trifle more perhaps, a quarter or half a cent a bushel more, than they charge for laying it

down in Montreal, namely, three and three-quarter cents. You cannot reduce that cost of transportation materially by the construction of the Georgian Bay canal.
In making our calculations and considering the advantages likely to be derived from the construction of this canal, it would be well for us to take advantage of the investigations that have been made on the other side of the line. There has been a question for several years as to wliat kind of waterway would best serve the purpose of carrying grain from the great lakes to the seaboard. There have been advocates of a 25-foot channel, there have been advocates of a 21-foot channel, and a 20-foot channel. There was a report made by Major Symons, of the engineer corps, United States army, who went into this question most carefully, and his decision was that the cheapest possible method of communication and of carriage of freight from the great lakes to the seaboard was by means of a canal from Buffalo to New York, with a 10-foot draught and with barges of from 1.000 to 1,200 tons burden. He pointed out that in a canal with a 21-foot draught, a vessel which brought a cargo down the lakes, would necessarily go through that canal at a low rate of speed, and would have to keep on hand her entire crew of engineers, firemen, and so forth ; and that she would go to Xew York, take tin her cargo and come back by the same slow method through the canal, and could not have a speed of over three or four miles an hour. The result of his careful calculation was that the cost of freight upon grain by the barge system would be less than by a ship canal of 21 feet, with vessels calculated to carry grain from Chicago or Duluth without breaking bulk. The state of New York, after considering all the data possible bearing upon this question, are taking measures to appropriate $26,000,000 to construct a barge canal from Buffalo to Albany with a branch to Oswego, with a draught of ten feet, and with large locks to accommodate barges of 1,000 tons burden. They believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that this is the cheapest possible mode of the transportation of grain from the lakes to the seaboard, and will answer the purpose better than a ship canal.
Now, if that is the case the Georgian Bay canal would hardly serve the purpose that we anticipate. There is another thing to be taken into consideration. Within the last twenty years the cost of transportation by rail has been reduced two-thirds by the introduction of the heavy steel rail, the fishplate joint, lower grades, air-brakes, and engines that will haul forty cars carrying fifty tons in a car, instead of hauling twenty ears with a load of ten tons to the cnr. This improvement in the method of railway transportation is going on. We have not reached the end of it yet. We have not arrived at the point where we have attained all that can be attained in the matter of transportation Mr. CHARLTON.
by rail. I venture to say that to-day the Georgian Bay canal would not be capable of competing with the Booth line of railway in taking grain from the lakes to Montreal or Quebec, and that in ten years the Booth line of railway and other lines of railways, by the improvements that are in progress, will have reduced the cost of moving freight upon their lines by possibly one-half what it is to-day. I think we may dismiss the idea of spending $100,000,000 on the Georgian Bay canal, for the present, at least, and that we may continue the use of the means that we have now, either by our railway system or our canal system, of laying grain down at the seaboard.
Now, we have to take into consideration : What is the best method of diverting this American trade ? How are we to get it, and where are we to place it for transhipment to ocean vessels ? The hon. member for St. Lawrence division, Montreal (Mr. Bielcerdike) asked me, this afternoon, when I first discovered that Quebec had advantages superior to those of Montreal. I had been a member of this House for a great many years, and 1 had never discovered this till quite recently, and he rather suspected that I had made use of this statement for the purpose of squaring myself with Quebec because some time last summer I had said that it would be a good idea, for ethnic and social reasons, to bring the races into contact by having a garrison and a large city there. When the St. Lawrence canals were deepened to 14 feet, the whole problem was changed. Before these canals were deepened bulk had to be broken at Kingston, and grain sent from Lake Ontario to Montreal on barges of 0 feet draught. When the canals were completed to a depth of 14 feet, you had navigation from Port Colborne on Lake Erie to Montreal for vessels of 14 feet draught, and the necessity of transhipment at Kingston, and the increased cost of freight in consequence of putting the grain upon a small class of barges, passed away. Now. you have, since the enlargement of these canals, an invitation to a class of upper lake shipping that is thrown out of business, a class of vessels that draw 14 feet of water, that are not unable to compete with the new class of vessels of 5,000 and 6,000 tons that are bringing down grain from Chicago and Duluth to Buffalo for a cent and a quarter a bushel-you have an invitation to these vessels which will crowd into this trade, and which, when the improvements at Port Colborne harbour are completed so as to allow large vessels from the upper lakes to come in. will take their cargoes at that harbour and carry them direct through to the St. Lawrence. The question is : Where should they deliver them ? Y*ou have an unlimited amount of tonnage. There are hundreds of these vessels that cannot work profitably between Duluth, or Chicago, and Buffalo, that would be glad to go into this

trade, and the question is : Will these vessels tranship that grain to the ocean vessels at Montreal or at Quebec, and what will be the advantage in the case it is done at Quebec over the advantage of doing the business at Montreal ? Now, these vessels can go down to Quebec without having a channel 30 feet deep and 000 feet wide. They can go down there with the present channel. They can go down if the channel filled up and they only had the average depth of the water of Lake St. Peter. They can go to Quebec and deliver that grain at an inappreciable fraction of a cent above the cost of doing it at Montreal, and they can meet at Quebec any vessel that sails the seas. A steamer of 20,000 tons can come there, cast her anchor in mid-stream and ride safely at anchor. She can go to the docks and have 50 feet of water. There are unlimited facilities for transacting the business, and business can be made to centre at Quebec. The cost of transportation from the lakes to Quebec will be practically the same as it is to Montreal and vessels can go there of any capacity, and they can go there, if they cannot maintain business for the year round, a month earlier than they can go to Montreal, and they can go from Quebec two months later in the season than they can go from Montreal. These are the advantages. No ?4,COO,000 of expense in dredging the bottom of Lake St. Peter, no money to be expended to raise wharfs so that sheds will not be swept off when the ice shove comes, no money to be expended for the purpose of getting places where you will have room to pile lumber, no money to be expended to make provision that butter, cheese, flour and wheat will not spoil, and cattle will not deteriorate in value $4 or $5 per head. All these things you have at Quebec. You have facilities for doing business without cost, or relatively without cost, and you can save the enormous expenditure of money that will be required to improve the port of Montreal, and have ber-ter facilities and a better port than you can got at Montreal iby the expenditure of any amount of money you please to put into it. Right along from Cape Diamond up the river for five miles from Quebec, are the old timber coves ; five miles where you can have docks for the whole distance, if you desire it, for handling the lumber that you have, not room in Montreal to handle, dockage on the other side of the river, dockage up the river for five miles, for ten miles, if you choose, and a safe au-chorage in mid-stream for the entire distance. And finally, you have a port that is not excelled in the world. Greater natural advantages are not possessed by any other port in the world. We can reach this port as cheaply as we can reach Montreal, we can get there without any great expenditure of money, we can keep the port open two or three months longer than we can keep the port at Montreal open, and for all these
reasons, it seems to me that the interests of Canada at large will be served by making or attempting to make the city of Quebec the great commercial centre of the Dominion. It has natural facilities. It has access to the ocean. Nature has designed it for the purposes that I am laying before the House, while Montreal is a point, where, if you attempt to make it an ocean port, you will contend for all time with difficulties. If you have a channel 30 feet deep and 000 feet wide you will draw down the water from above and create dangers by reason of the current, and when you have done that, you will have a narrow channel that is dangerous for a great ocean-going steamer to attempt' to navigate. With a stiff wind blowing across the river it requires very fine seamanship to keep such a vessel from drifting on the mud. The difficulties connected with navigation between Montreal and Quebec are mainly the reason for the high insurance rates, and must inevitably increase freight rates, and put a damper upon the commercial business of the port. That is the view I take of this matter.
I believe that we are working against na ture in going past one of the finest seaports in the world, a seaport which has 100 feet of water in mid-channel and can have 40 or 50 feet of water at the docks close to shore, a seaport with an anchorage sufficient to accommodate all the navies of the world, and with access to the ocean three months longer than from Montreal. I believe we are working against nature in striving to force business past that natural port, away up the river through a ditch dug in Lake St. Peter, to the city of Montreal, 180 miles above. I think we had better let these lake vessels that will carry the grain from Port Colborne, where vessels can come from up the lakes drawing 21 feet of water ; we had better let the vesselg to which the grain is transferred at that point proceed on their voyage to Quebec and transfer their cargoes there at a cost oif perhaps one-tenth of a cent a bushel more than it would cost in the city of Montreal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will not stop them in Montreal if they want to go.
Mr: CHARLTON. You cannot stop them in Montreal, when natural conditions assert themselves. Quebec is going to assert herself. The natural advantages of Quebec cannot be overridden. We are going to have a garrison there, and an English nopu-lation there, and the centre of the business of the country there, and we are going to see ethnic and social conditions there that will work a revolution in Quebec and make it the great export city of this Dominion.


Robert Bickerdike: And make them loyal.


John Charlton: They are loyal now, and we will make them rich and give them business.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am afraid the garrison is coming to Montreal.


John Charlton: I think perhaps commerce will come to Quebec before the garrison, and I would rather see it so. I agree with some of the contentions made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). We want free canals ; we want free ports. We want a free port at Montreal. We want a free port at Quebec. We do not want to have any burdens placed upon the commerce of this country that can be removed, and we have to remove these burdens if we are going to compete with our rivals to the south of the line. That is perfectly apparent. Let these burdens be removed. Take off the tolls on the canals ; take off the port charges, and make both ports and canals free. And with regard to the hydrographic survey, by all means let the Department of Marine expend the money necessary to make a thorough survey of every foot of that river from Montreal to the Gulf


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The survey is being made between Montreal and Quebec now.


John Charlton: All right, let it be proceeded with. Let us have a thorough hydrographic survey by the Belle Isle and by the other route, and let us have no more of such complaints, as my hon. friend (Mr. Roddick) presented to the House from British naval officers and British ship-masters as to the lack of information, and the misleading character of some of the information at their command with regard to this great waterway.
The ^ MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES. ^ ou have now a perfect hydrographic survey of the Straits of Belle Isle, and the complaints of the British officer referred to were made years ago. The British government have been engaged for twenty years completing that hydrographic survey.


John Charlton: It is most gratifying to know this, and if there is anything lacking in that respect let it be supplied at once. My hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Edwards) informed us that we were not in a condition which would enable us to carry on commerce successfully because we had not an import trade, and the hon. gentleman from East York (Mr. Maclean) asked him how we compared in that respect with the United States. I was led to infer from the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) that we in Canada imported less per capita than they did in the United States. I find from the Trade and Navigation Returns, that our imports last year amounted to $180.0(10,0(10, which represents about $32 per head of our population. I have not the Mr. BICKERDIKE.
American statistics at hand, but taking the population at 73,000,000, if the United States imported per capita as much as we do, they would have imported $2,400,000,000, which is probably $400,000,000 more than their entire import and export trade. If 1 am not mistaken our import trade per capita is about two and a half times as great as that of the United States. Whatever may be our advantages or lack of advantages with regard to return cargoes, I do not think that we get as small a proportion of return cargoes, on this basis, as they do in the United States.
1 again desire to disclaim any intention or desire to advocate the interests of one point to the detriment of another. I endeavour to look at this question from the standpoint of a person interested in the general welfare of the Dominion. We have vast interests here to protect; we have a great future before us, and we want to avail ourselves of the very best methods of protecting aud advancing our interests. And while great interests are centred in Montreal and will continue to centre there, I think the views I have placed before the House with regard to the superior commercial advantages of Quebec are just and well founded. While I would not think for a moment of counselling the adoption of a policy that would leave Montreal side-tracked or leave that city without the means to maintain its port in good order, yet I think we may as well contemplate the propriety and necessity of making the natural seaport of this Dominion the point where our commerce from the west shall centre. We ought to direct some great railway to Quebec. Quebec is almost as near the wheat fields of the west as Montreal if a proper railway line is selected. Quebec is the natural point from which to tap James Bay. The province of Quebec has a vast area in the interior, of land yet to open for cultivation which will support millions of inhabitants, and I am happy to believe, Sir, that the forecast I have made, with regard to the future greatness of Quebec will be realized ; that the natural advantages of Quebec will command that prosperity which it is entitled to and which it will be sure to receive. I have arrived at this conclusion partly from the fact that I have been upon the ground ; have made a study of the matter ; have realized after personal observation the advantages that city possesses.


William Findlay Maclean: Dear old Quebec.


John Charlton: Fine old city. An historic city. A city that had a history when there was not a white man in this vast region of the great lakes, and not a white man in the Mississippi valley. Quebec was then a city of importance and I believe it will rise to its pristine greatness again. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we should dismiss from our minds the prejudices that are engendered of local strifes and local jealous-

ies, that we should look on this matter from the broad national standpoint and realize that if we are to secure for ourselves that share of the carrying trade from the west which we desire ; if we are to pluck from the hands of these American lines anything more than the paltry 10 or 12 per cent of the business which we enjoy now, we have to make diligent and energetic use of all the means and all the advantages that nature has given us, aud amongst these is to avail ourselves of the port of Quebec, one of the best seaports in the world.


Mr. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Mai-soueuve and Terrebonne).: Mr. Speaker, as one of the representatives from the city of Montreal in this parliament. I feel it my duty to offer a few remarks on the question now before the House. It shall be necessary for me to answer the hon. membei for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) on certain points, and to deal also, with some of the observations which have been addressed to the House by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards), and by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). It is, I believe, the object of every member from the district of Montreal-whether he represents the city proper or an adjoining constituency-to treat this trade question in a broad and national basis and not as affecting the city of Montreal alone. I shall treat this question as a question of the national route of the St. Lawrence and as affecting the trade of the whole country-
But before discussing the question itself, let me at ouce take up the position of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, which has been assailed by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).' The Harbour Commission of Montreal is not a new institution of this government. It is a very old institution, dating back for about forty years, and it has been maintained by succeeding governments during that time. It has been maintained in spite of attacks upon it and in spite of periodical demands for its abolition and the substitution of the administration of the Department of Public Works. I do not want to pronounce upon that question, although I have my own views upon it; but on a large and broad question like this, I do not want to press my personal views at all. Some hon. members of this House may not know that the Harbour Commission of Montreal is composed of eleven persons, of whom six are chosen by the Governor in Council and five by the five most important public bodies of the city of Montreal-one by the shipping interest, one by the corn exchange, one by the Board of Trade, one by the Chambre du Commerce, one by the City Council. In this way the different public bodies, those who know something about the trade aud commerce of the port, are supposed to be represented on the harbour commission. This is not the first time that the harbour commission has been assailed
not only in this House, but also outside; but I think my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier will admit that it was assailed a great deal more some years ago than it has been since 1890.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not assail it. I said there was a division of authority between the harbour board, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and I suggested the appointment of a commission. But I never had it in my mind to assail the harbour board at all, and I did not do so.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If I understood the words of my hon. friend, they meant that the Harbour Commission of Montreal were rather slow-that they were moving too slowly altogether; and I presumed when he used those words that he was assailing the present harbour board. I want to answer that part of my hon. friend's remarks. The present Harbour Board of Montreal has existed since the end of the year 1897. It really went into office in 1898. Let us see what it has accomplished since that time. Since the year 1889, the old Harbour Commissioners of Montreal had been fighting together over a plan of improvements of the harbour. In 1889, $1,000,090 had been voted by the city of Montreal to help that commission to do certain works which were considered absolutely necessary to protect the city against inundation aud to provide accommodation for the export trade of the whole Dominion. From 1889 to 1S98 they had been fighting among themselves; they had not agreed upon any settled plan for making the improvements really needed; and only part of the work had been completed-the guard pier in the centre of the St. Lawrence. In 1898, as soon as the present board came in charge of the affairs of tlie harbour, they proceeded at once to have those plans adopted, and they were adopted in June of that year, and were approved by the Department of Public Works. It did not take them ten years or nine years to do this. In five months they got the plans adopted, and they at once proceeded with the works. After starting the works according to those plans, what did they discover ? They discovered that the estimates made by the engineer were below the amount that was needed to make the improvements. They at ouce came before this government and asked for legislation which would enable them to borrow enough money to go on with the improvements in accordance with the accepted plan. This government did not hesitate a moment. In the session of 189S, the necessary legislation was granted, under which the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal were authorized to borrow $3,000,000 to go on witli those improvements. Of course, the contracts had not been given out to a large extent previous to the season of 1898. and I will admit that the works did not proceed during that season as fast as they would have

bour commissioners at Montreal are erecting wliarfs on the high level to provide against inundation. Permanent warehouses will be arranged, which will reduce the cost of handling the freight in the port. All these things, of course, cannot be done in a day. The harbour commissioners do not rent to any company the right to run cars on the wharfs, but the roads belong to the harbour commissioners themselves, and the use of the roads is open to all the railways on paying a certain rental. So. there is no monopoly, there is no preference, and everything is done for the advantage of the port. Now, without going further, there is a question whicli has been treated more or less during this debate, the question whether the port of Montreal has ever been helped by the government and how that has been done. It lias been done in other places. I have in my hand figures procured for the harbour commissioners in Montreal in 1898, when we began the discussion of this question. The report of John M. Wilson, brigadier-general of the United States army, goes to show the following facts with regard to the ports in the United States. Boston harbour has been helped by the Federal government to the extent of $1,271,000 in round figures ; New York, $4,701,000 ; Philadelphia harbour, including Delaware river, $5,000,000 ; Baltimore harbour, $2,500,000. Now, in Canada, what have we been doing as regards the helping of ports out of public money ? We have a statement, which has been filed before this House, in reply to an interpellation by Mr. Lepine, who was a member of this House for the St. Mary's division of Montreal, on the 6th of February, 1893. This shows that the amount of $17.835,420 has been voted by the Dominion government since 1867 in improving harbours, building breakwaters, dredging, &c. According to the list I hold in my hand, it appears that not a cent has been siaent in the port of Montreal by this government or by aiiy government. The only amount that can be said to be charged to Montreal is the debt that was assumed by the government in 18S0 or 1887. of about $3,000,000. which has been spent by the harbour commissioners in dredging the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal. That amount had been levied on the trade and commerce done in the port of Montreal, and it was only fair and reasonable that the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal should be reimbursed for this amount, and that the debt should be assumed by the Dominion government. From that time up to the present, not a single cent has been paid by the Dominion government for improvements in the port of Montreal, and unless the government is disposed to take over the debt of the harbour commissioners that I have .-Just mentioned, and assume the management of the port; the commissioners will have to continue to levy dues upon commerce, and will have to devise some means of obtain-Mr. PREFONTAINE.
i ns' a revenue from the trade coming into Montreal so as to meet the interest on the debt that they7 are authorized to incur.
1 may mention to the House that other countries have expended large sums in improving their ports. There is nothing extraordinary in that. There is no reason why the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) and the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) should oppose any grants that may be made to the St. Lawrence route, in view of the amounts which other countries have spent in improving their harbours. England has not hesitated a moment in spending at different times $1.000.000, $80,000,000 and $60,000,000 to improve its port at London. Belgium has spent $30,000,000 at Antwerp, and during its last session of parliament has appropriated another $15,000,000 to complete the harbour improvements at Antwerp on the north side of L'Escout. Holland has also spent $72,000,000 at Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Manchester has just spent $68,000,000 in order to afford navigation to seagoing vessels in its harbour without breaking bulk. Denmark, a small country, follows the example and creates a free port at Copenhagen, with a depth of 30 feet of water, at the cost of more than $25,000,000. France has spent $30,000,000 at Havre, $25,000,000 at Marseilles, and $12,000,000 at Bordeaux. In view of all these facts, are we to be blamed for insisting that the St. Lawrence should be made into a condition to accommodate at least the trade of our Canadian North-west, and if possible, to secure the greatest part of the trade of the western states ? I think the question should be discussed from a broad national point of view, rather than as regarding Montreal proper. I admit that the government since 1898 has regarded this question as a national one, and I hope they will still continue so to regard it.


Mr. G. IV. GANONG (Charlotte).: I think the members of this House will conclude that this question has resolved itself into one between Montreal and Quebec, rather than into a broad and national question, from which point of view it should be considered. No Canadian who has the interest of his country at heart fails to recognize that this transportation question is one of the greatest problems that we have to grapple with. The discussion of this question which has taken place in the last parliament as well as during the present session, shows that our people are alive to the situation. But there are other features of this transportation question which must not be lost sight of. The member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has spoken of the great competitor we have to the south of us. and, as he says, it is time that our Canadian people should wake up to this fact and put forth every possible effort in order to meet them where they are endeavouring to take

away trade from us. I do not propose tonight, however, to discuss the relative advantages of Montreal or Quebec. That is a very debatable question, but the facts that have just been stated by the hon. member for Maisonueuve (Mr. Prefontaiue) show that it is of the utmost interest to all Canada. He says that in 188(5 this government assumed a debt of 83,000.000, which had been incurred for dredging the River St. Lawrence, but he has not told us how many million dollars this country has spent there since 1886. Our people are now considering whether this transportation should not be continued a little further down the River St. Lawrence without breaking bulk.
I support the contention of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) as to the need of a most thorough hydrographic survey of Canadian coastal waters. I "believe there is nothing in which we are weaker than in this very respect. It is well known that the British Admiralty have for years given great attention to this subject, so that every rock and shallow "on the coast of Great Britain is as well known as the landmarks are. Even in Canada we have derived some advantage from the work of the British Admiralty along our coasts, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has told us. In discussing this matter of a winter port, we have only heard four or live ports mentioned. I would like to give the House a little information. We have been told about Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a county called Charlotte in the province of New Brunswick, and I want to tell you further that there are two of the best harbours on the Atlantic seaboard in that country. There is the harbour of Letang which was surveyed by Admiral Owen in 1842, and which lie stated was the best harbour from Florida to Newfoundland, a harbour capable of accommodating the whole British fleet. It has an advantage over the harbour of Montreal and some others in the fact that it lias no silt, it has no large river emptying its deposit into the harbour.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: What is the rise and fall of the tide in this harbour ?


Gilbert White Ganong: Nearly 30 feet, but it has less fog than the city of Halifax and some points on Cape Breton. Now, this hydrographic survey that has been referred to cannot be undertaken too soon. I have no disposition to say anything against the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I think it is only a year or two ago that a steamer ran on an unmarked rock in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and if proper provision had been made for a hydrographic survey, that accident would have been impossible. But how this matter shall be taken up is another question. Without doubt it presents many difficulties. There is no maritime country in the world
that is better equipped than Canada to improve its national waterways. We have the most magnificent fisheries in the world and we have employed in them an army of some 80,000 men. These men are all of good physique, men of intelligence, men of brawn and muscle, men inured to hardships from their very laborious work and they would make excellent auxiliaries if utilized for the carrying on of the work of the hydrographic survey. We are all the time increasing this army; in fact, the army is increasing more rapidly than we can utilize it. If you will look at the statistics of the Fisheries Department you will find that within the last five or six years some 15,000 of these stalwarts have been added to the fishing- fleets. But, we are furnishing this same brawn, brain and muscle to the United States, for if you look at the records of the Gloucester fishing fleet, you will see that there is hardly a vessel lost on the banks but lias amongst its crew men from Shelburne, from Guysborough. from Lunenburg or some other Nova Scotia or New Brunswick county. So that, we are supplying for the American fleet brawn, brain and muscle.
Now, Sir, these men are not adapted to farming. It is almost impossible to take a man from these districts and put him at successful farming. But, we want to keep our Canadians at home and if we would keep them at home we must make some provision for utilizing them. I would suggest something that I hope will be adopted in the future if not at present. I believe that this government, acting by itself, or in connection with the British government, could take up this matter in such a form that we will keep many of our young men who are leaving us to-day within our own borders, men who are ready to defend the empire and do honour to Canada as our soldiers have done in South Africa. I believe that we should have, as soon as possible, such arrangements made with Great Britain as will result in the fitting out of at least three auxiliary cruisers for our coastal waters, one for British Columbia, one for the Gulf of St. Lawrence and one for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and that these auxiliary cruisers should take this surplus of men that we have in the fishing fleet and train them for the navy so that when Great Britain requires assistance she will be able to get a good strong quota from her Canadian colony. The men themselves would like it. I understand that at the time the volunteers were asked for South Africa numerous applications were made from the islands in my county but because these men could not ride a horse they could not go. They can ride a taflfrail, or a spar, or a yard, but, if proper conditions in regard to this navy arrangement which I have suggested existed, we could have hundreds of these young men trained for the British navy, young men who would be very glad

to give their services. I have to-day applications from four or five districts in my county from fishermen who wish to form rifle clubs in order to put themselves in a position to be able to take their part in defence of the empire. Instead of furnishing a good quota for the American navy as we are doing to-day. we would have at least three training ships filled with Canadian blue-jackets ready to defend the interests of the empire, and if these three training ships were used for the purpose of the hydrographic survey, just as British ships "have been used around the coasts, we would derive great advantage from it. I would go farther ; if Great Britain would not take hold of this project with us, I would have Canada prepare three auxiliary cruisers herself so that we would have a class of ships that could be utilized in defence of the empire if it were necessary at any time. We would not then be furnishing brawn or brain to the nation to the south of us, or be furnishing men to that country who might be a menace to our independence at some time in the future. I do not propose to take up any more time of the House, but I believe if these suggestions were carried out we would, in a very few years, have our coastal service in such a condition that the coastal navigation of Canada would be equal to that of the British Islands.


Mr. W. R. BROCK (Centre Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I trust that at this late hour of the night I will not have the bad taste to occupy the time of the House for more than a very few minutes. We have heard addresses from hon. gentlemen from the east, from Montreal, from Quebec, from the Atlantic coast, and while I have been very anxious to learn all I could upon the transportation question, the discussion seems to have narrowed itself down to the questions, as the last speaker (Mr. Ganong) has said, as to the most desirable port, whether it should be Montreal, or whether it should be Quebec. Now, I venture to say that this is a vastly larger question than is involved in that consideration of it. It is a question that will occupy, and should occupy a very great deal of the time of the best expert talent in the Dominion of Canada. The question of transportation does not involve only a matter of the point of shipment, whether it should be Quebec ; whether it should be Montreal, or Portland, or Boston. The question Involved is : How shall we obtain for the producers of Canada of every kind the best possible results for their labour and investments. Can that result be attained by attempting merely for the sake of what may be called patriotic motives, the forcing of freight and passengers up-hill ? I contend that the nearest port, the cheapest port to reach is the best port for Canada. The advantage accruing to the average man in this country from all its productions is the profit which remains in the hands of Mr. GANONG.
the producers after all expenses have been paid, and if our freight expenses, not only our freight expenses down through Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence to the sea, but those greater expenses from the Rocky Mountains to the headwaters of Lake Superior, be added to the expenses of placing our goods on the market in England it is a matter that should occupy the attention, as I said before, of experts. A suggestion was made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that I most heartily endorse. It is that the government should seriously consider the appointment of an expert commission outside of this House which would sit year in and year out, take evidence and report to this House, season after season, the result of their experience and of their consultations. I contend that this* would have the effect of doing far more for this country than an expenditure of $750,000 a year upon a fast passenger service to take passengers to and from the continent. I contend that a passenger service, however desirable in itself, is not nearly as desirable to this country as a first-class freight service. A first-class freight service which would have cold storage added to its facilities would be an advantage. We have heard a great deal about cold storage and have seen very little of it. I come, as hon. gentlemen; know, from Toronto and we see very little of cold storage there, but I contend that there should be better cold storage facilities in various parts of this country for the preservation of fruits, vegetables and all kinds of perishable commodities. There is an industry in the province of Ontario and which I think extends into the province of Quebec and it is the industry <?f canning fruits and vegetables. I attended a meeting a short time ago at which it was announced that last year there were 10,000,000 tins of fruit canned in this country, and that in consequence of the difficulty of placing them on the English market they were unable to export them and all had to be consumed at home. If we were able to properly export these goods there would be 30,000,000 cans produced within a short time, because there are more apples and other fruit rotting in our orchards than would supply the demands of the people of England.
At present there is great pressure brought to bear upon the government to expend vast sums of money on canals. I would not -take it upon myself to say that our past expenditure on canals has been all lost, but I am prepared to maintain the assertion that, any large future expenditure on canals would be a very great mistake. Canals have had their day, and railroads in all directions are surpassing and supplementing them. People nowadays want to get a return for their money quiekly, and they can only accomplish that by using railways to consign their products to the markets in preference to the slower means of shipping

fby canal routes. Whether or not there should be government control or government ownership of railways, as contended for by the hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean), I believe that whenever a railway receives a bonus from the country, the freight rates on that railway should be controlled by the government or by a commission appointed by the government. 1 would strongly urge the government not to spend any more large sums of money upon new canal systems. The Georgian Bay canal is spoken of to cost sixty or seventy million dollars, and other expensive canals are advocated. We gave a charter the other day to a railway, allowing it "bonding privileges for $10,000 a mile, a railway that would only be used when one steamer can meet it at the Georgian Bay, and another steamer meet it on Lake Ontario. This vast railway that is to cost such an enormous sum can only be used for six months in the year. I would again suggest that this vast subject of transportation should be taken hold of by the government appointing a commission to investigate it in all its hearings. I think Canada has an honest and solid claim upon the mother country, founded on the fact that it is not the fault of Canada that we have no better ports than we have to-day. It is the fault of Great Britain, who gave away those great ports which did belong to us and should belong to us.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: Canada is not to blame for that. I place some responsibility upon the shoulders of the right hon. the Prime Minister, that when he was in England representing this country, he neglected that grand opportunity of using this argument with the British government, and asking them for privileges in their markets as some compensation for having given away those splendid harbours which should property belong to us. I believe that would be a strong argument, an argument that would prevail, aud an argument which would add somewhat to the enthusiasm that seems to be growing in favour of preferential trade between the mother lanid and her colonies. This is a matter which might also be taken into consideration by the commission which has been suggested by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). There is involved in it great questions that might occupy the attention of the cabinet ministers and of the great minds of this country, who have expert knowledge of matters connected with transportation. Facilities for the proper export of our produce is one thing, but. as the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) suggested, we have to do something in the line of bringing freight back to this country. To accomplish that we must have population. and to get population we must demonstrate to the people of Europe that we have in Canada vast advantages over the country to the south of us. I do not believe that
even the members of this House who have not been to the Pacific coast can realize the wonderful resources of this country, its enormous extent, and its vast areas of arable land yet unfilled. If this matter is property handled, I believe that before many years there will he such a population in this country as will astonish us, and that even those of us who are growing old will live to be so astonished. Our concern is not only to find the nearest, cheapest and quickest way to the markets of Europe, but it is as well to demonstrate in these markets the richness and the productiveness of our country. A moment ago I spoke of the canned fruit trade, and to give an idea of the possibilities of that industry if we could find a market, I may state that from the province of Ontario alone we could supply all the canned fruits aud vegetables required for the English market. Coming from the interior of the country, as I do, I am not here to advocate the city of Montreal, or the city of Quebec, or the city of Halifax, as the national port. The great question for us to consider is not the merits of any one port, but the general interests of the whole Dominion. If it is desirable to double-track some of our railroads, I believe that the government should assist in that work rather than spend large sums of money upon canals. I believe that the government should take great care, however, to retain in their own hands, that power which I fear they have not now of regulating the freight rates on our railway system.
We have heard a good deal in this House about the insurance question, and about the difficulty of getting vessels to come to Montreal, in consequence of the high rate of insurance. That is a question which like the waters of the great St. Lawrence, will find its own level. Banking institutions are seeking investments in this country, and if there is a good route by way of Montreal or any other, money will be found to seek investment in insurance and in everything else connected with our trade, at a reasonable rate of interest on the investment. Sir, I want more evidence, and I think the country wants more evidence, as to what scheme should be devised for best promoting the trade of the country. I believe that before any expenditure is undertaken either in Montreal or Quebec, a commission should be appointed not only to inquire into this question, but generally to take into consideration the best interests of the whole Dominion, and I believe, Sir, that the recommendation of such a commission would have great weight with the public, and would tend to a proper conclusion as to wliat is best to be done in the best interests of Canada.


Aaron Abel Wright: It may be thought somewhat strange that a person from an inland county should take any material interest in a subject such as this, but it seems to me that this is a ques-

326i
tion of vital importance to every man, -woman and cliild living in tile Dominion of Canada.
We are told tliat history repeats itself. If that be so, is it not wise for us to look a little ahead and see what is going to take place in the future ? Let us look back a few years, for example, and note what has taken place in the United States. I remember very well when the Genesee valley in the state of New York was one of the great grain-growing centres of the United States. At that time Rochester was called the flour city, because it possessed so many wheatgrinding mills. That has all changed. The wheat growing has left the state of New York and gone to the western states. Comparatively none of that cereal is grown in the state of New York now. A still greater change has taken place. When the wheatgrowing area moved further west, people in New York state got their livelihood largely by raising cattle and manufacturing cheese and butter ; but, in a short space of time these industries also went west. Large manufacturing cities grew up in the state of New York, and the milk which formed the raw material of the cheese and butter factories was absorbed by the population of those cities ; milk trains went in every direction. To give an illustration, only a few years ago, the Standard Butter Company, of Owego, N.Y., manufactured .more butter than any other creamery in the world. To-day that creamery is practically closed, because it cannot get the raw material.
Now, what has taken place in the United States is more than likely to take place in Canada. To-day in the province of Ontario large quantities of cheese and butter are manufactured and exported ; but, we are also growing a large quantity of wheat. But the 'same thing which took place in the state of New York is going to take place in Ontario. Our wheat fields will be in the west ; our cheese and butter factories will be in the east; and in Ontario we shall have other kinds of factories, such as woollen factories and iron factories. We must prepare for these changes. We must provide proper facilities for transporting the manufactured goods which we are going to make in Ontario, in Quebec, and, perhaps, in the maritime provinces, and also for carrying grain, flour, cattle and dairy products from the western plains of this Dominion. In order to do that we must improve the St. Lawrence route, and make it as perfect as possible.
The first thing to be done is for the government to make arrangements to provide facilities for the navigation of the St. Lawrence from the sea to Quebec and Montreal, so as to avoid the enormous insurance rates which have to be paid at present. Then, in the eastern portion of the Dominion we have wonderful facilities for manufacturing. We have such splendid water powers that Mr. WRIGHT. .
we can manufacture more cheaply here than in other parts of the Dominion. The construction of the Georgian Bay canal, which, I believe, will be constructed, will afford us a large addition of water power. Take the town of Cornwall, which has such large factories, or the town of Yalleyfield, and COte St. Paul, just outside of the city of Montreal. These places could never have had an existence if canals had not been constructed in their neighbourhood, furnishing them with water powers which the factories have utilized. Although the hon. member for Norfolk said that we would have difficulties in our canals such as they have in the Erie canal, and that the vessels would have to go so slowly and be so small that they could never compete with the railroads, I must differ entirely with him in that respect. The Erie canal is narrow for its whole distance, whereas the Georgian Bay canal will have large stretches of river navigation with a great depth of water, and only in the vicinity of waterfalls will the vessels have to go slowly. When that canal is constructed, such large water powers will be developed, that our manufactures will receive another impetus, and in the eastern part of the Dominion we shall be able to manufacture goods for the -western part of the Dominion, where they will grow grain and raise cattle.
With reference to the difficulty of loading and unloading cattle at the port of Montreal. I believe the time is not far distant when we shall not export our live cattle ; but they will be slaughtered here, giving employment to our people, and the hides and offal will be kept in the country for the benefit of our tanners and other manufacturers. When that is done we can export our chilled beef to the old country ; and, although we have no cases in Canada of rinderpest or pleuro-pneumonia such as they have in other countries, it will make no difference whether the authorities in the old country think we have them here or not, because we shall be exporting the chilled beef, which will go cheaper and better, and there will be more employment in our own country.
I do not propose, at this late hour of the night, to detain the House any longer ; but I believe this is a subject in which every man in Canada, no matter where he resides, is interested. It makes no difference to me whether the shipping facilities are greater in the city of Quebec or in the city of Montreal. What we want is cheap and excellent transportation for all the goods we manufacture in Ontario and the eastern provinces, and the very best and cheapest transportation for the products of the prairie provinces and the far west. I believe the time is not far distant when the head of navigation will not stop at Montreal, but will be carried farther west, and, perhaps, reach Fort William. That will be when our canals shall be deepened so that they will

compete with tlie railroads, and make them give us lower freights.
We all know that things are changing every day. It is within our recollection when a car could only hold 20,000 pounds, whereas to-day cars are manufactured that hold 73,000 to 80,000 pounds and some that will hold even more than that for the carriage of coal. The time was when an engine would only draw about twenty of these cars holding 20,000 pounds each, hut now there are these immense moguls which will haul 43 cars holding 70,000 pounds each, and the consequence is the railway lines can handle our freight much cheaper. And if we have cars and vessels that are growing in size, we must have large canals, and improved waterways and bring our waterways further into the interior, so that vessels can come right into the very centre of our country, where its products are grown and carry them at the lowest possible rate. I believe that the time is coming when our navigation will be deepened, and larger vessels will come further into the interior, and when that day comes an era of prosperity will dawn on us far exceeding anything yet dreamed of.
Hon. WILLIAM ROSS (Victoria, ISf.S.) At this late hour, I do not intend to take up much time, and would not have risen only it does not seem to be known in this House that we have a province called Nova Scotia and a harbour called Halifax. I was amused at the description of the New Brunswick harbour, where the smallest rise of the tide is about 30 feet. Why, in the harbour of Halifax, the ordinary rise is from 3} to 4 ieet, and the spring tides do not rise more than 0 feet. Besides that harbour is open all the year round, and within an hour from the time a steamer turns her face to the entrance, she is out in the open sea with nothing in the world before her except the vast expanse of ocean until she reaches the other side. But coming to Quebec or Montreal, once she passes between Cape North and Cape Ray and trims along the Magdalen Islands, she has to move slowly and cautiously and pick out her way in order to preserve life and property. Nothing of that kind is required in entering the port of Halifax. It is all very well to speak of those fresh-water ports, but it seems to me that the speeches made in connection with those ports were to some extent also a little fresh. When you come to speak of a harbour that is closed in the month of November and not open again until the month of May, there is no comparison between it and the harbour of Halifax. And not only are the ports of Quebec and Montreal closed during the winter season, but when they are open they are expensive ports. The pilotage is expensive, and I know that there would be a larger trade between Nova Scotia and those ports, were it not for the pilotage and other expenses which deter 103
vessels from going there to exchange cargoes. If you want to bring trade to Montreal and Quebec, you must cheapen everything in connection with the shipping of goods, and in that respect the harbour of Halifax is 50 per cent cheaper than either Montreal or Quebec. The great draw-'back to Montreal is the amount of improvements required to make it a successful shipping port. Nothing of that kind is required in Halifax. The harbour is deep and requires no dredging, and there are no rocks or shoals or other impediments in it. You can almost put your hands on the decks of the steamers as they come up and down outside our wharfs. We have every facility, and when those other places are asleep in the winter time you will see steamers running in and out of Halifax just as they do in summer.


William Findlay Maclean: What does Halifax need then to build up its port ? Why does not trade go there now ?


William Ross: The trade is there now. The number of steamers that go in and out of the port of Halifax every day of the Week shows that it is.


William Findlay Maclean: Why then does not the trade of Canada go to so magnificent a port ?


William Ross: The reason is the length of the haul by railway, which of course deters freight from going to Halifax.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman's proposal then is to get lower railway rates.


William Ross: What we require is lower rates over the Intercolonial Railway and greater speed in the transit of freight. Of course we are not advancing in this country in respect of our transit facilities as fast as they are in other countries, so that there is a great deal for us yet to learn in that respect. But I did not rise except to let the House know the advantages of the harbour of Halifax, which are superior to anything on this side of the Atlantic under British possessions.


Mr.  G. W.@: FOWLER (King's, N.B.) I had not intended to take any part in this debate, but I notice that the most important harbour in all Canada has not yet received any attention. I refer now to the harbour of St. John, N.B.


William Ross: It is a mud hole.


Mr. FOWLER.: The hon. member for Victoria says it is a mud hole.


William Ross: Yes, they are dredging there all the time.


George William Fowler: It is not hid behind a bank of fog, as Halifax is, for a good portion of the year. It was only a short time ago that a steamer was obliged to lie to for two or three days outside Halifax as she could not get in on account of the fogs.
REVISED edition
*3267


William Ross: Tliat is not a true statement.


George William Fowler: My hon. friend is too oitl *to get excited and I trust lie will keep cool. He lias bad a long experience that ought to enable him to receive matters of that kind in a different spirit. It is* passing strange that the winter transportation question has not yet been discussed. We have been talking altogether about the harbours of Montreal and Quebec, and the rival claims of these two have been held up. I do not think that there should be any rivalry in this matter between Montreal and Quebec. Let each try to get the largest proportion it can of this trade and divert it from the American ports to which it is now going. For that reason any reasonable expense which this government is called upon to expend for this purpose would be well expended and well received by the country. I believe, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) spoke rather disparagingly of the Idea, that the foreign trade of this country should be carried from our Canadian ports, even if by doing so you should not get the nearest port of shipment. I think that the important thing for this country is that our trade should go to European ports from our own ports and not from those of foreign countries. And I think that every effort that it is possible for this country to make to that end should be made. Suppose that we were at difference with our friends to the south of us, what position would we be in if we had no means of transport in the winter from our own ports ? Our trade would be paralyzed. We have to surmount by artificial means whatever difficulties we have in this country. We have many examples of that being done. Take, for instance, the manufacture of sugar. The immense quantities of sugar made in continental Europe are made under the bounties given to assist the sugar-growers of those countries as against the competition of the AVest India Islands. So with us, if we have natural difficulties to surmount, let us surmount them, and let the country pay for their removal so far as they can be removed. 1 am here in hearty accord with the claims advocated by the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on behalf of Montreal and Quebec. But we must not forget that we have a winter port question. A great deal of our grain must be shipped in the winter, and it cannot be shipped from the port of Montreal or the port of Quebec, notwithstanding the ice-breaking machines of which we have heard. Until those machines are perfected, and in use at any rate, we must use our maritime ports. I do not believe in the spirit of rivalry between Halifax and St. John. But St. John has the advantage over Halifax that it is so much nearer the grain centres of the west and
the port of Montreal. I think it is unfortunate, if the policy pursued by the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) has the effect of injuring the port of St. John. I have seen many things to recommend in the policy of the minister in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. I believe in the extension of the road to Montreal. The country may have had to pay too much for it, but that is a matter of detail. But the hon. gentleman's policy with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway has seriously affected the ports of St. John and Montreal. The idea advanced by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier of a commission of men who are to grapple with the situation and who understand the conditions to inquire into the case, is a good idea. But the government should act at once and appoint this commission, not allowing political motives to influence them in the selection. If they will, without considering politics, select the men, three or five of the men best qualified to sit upon a board, and these gentlemen take into consideration not only the question of summer transportation and the canals but also the winter transportation and the question of the maritime ports, they will be able, I am convinced, to work out a scheme that will be for the benefit of Canada.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As there are many hon. gentlemen desirous of taking part in the debate, and as it is now nearly twelve o'clock, I move that the debate be adjourned.


William Findlay Maclean: When will it go on ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: To-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 18, 1901.