1902-02-17

Mr.  W. F.@: MACLEAN (East York), moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 2) regarding telephones and telephone companies.


Mr. SPROULE.: Explain.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Mr. Speaker, this Bill deals with telephones and telephone companies. It is based largely on the present general Acts respecting telegraphs, the clauses being very similar to the clauses of those Acts. For a moment, I desire to direct the attention of the House to the object which I have in view. The first clause of importance in this Bill is that the company has power to fix Its tolls. The next clause provides that the company must give equal treatment; and the clause following that calls for government control, supervision and revision of those tolls. And, by tolls, I mean not only the charges made for messages, but the rentals of telephones. Under the Bill, all these tolls must he approved by the Governor iu Council in the same way as are the rates of telegraph companies and railway companies. Another clause, in the same direction, provides that these tolls may be revised from time to time by the Governor in Council. It is also here provided that the telephone companies shall post up their tolls in their various offices. Another important clause, in the line of the general provisions I have referred to is one providing against unfair discrimination, while another clause provides that there shall be no rebates. A provision is made also for. agreements between companies, just as, under the Railway Act, provision Is made for agreement between railway companies, and as in those cases, the agreements must be approved by the Governor in Council. But the most important clause, and the one to which I desire to direct special attention, provides that every telephone company must give the right of way for the use of its system by every other telephone company, just as every railway company must give the use of its lines to other railway companies. At the present time we have one great telephone company in Canada- the Bell Telephone Company-which is in a position, at this moment, to refuse the use of its trunk line to every other company. This Act will compel the Bell Telephone Company and every other similar company to give what we might call running rights to other companies. There is also provision for the order of transmitting



messages, as in the law governing telegraph companies; and another provision giving the Minister of Justice the first right of use of the telephone system. Another very important clause, and one in the line of something to which I have directed the attention of this House more than once, empowers the government to take over the telephone system at any time in the same way as they are authorized to take over the telegraph system of the country. Still another very important point well worthy of the attention of the House, well worthy of adoption, is a clause which will have the effect of preventing any telephone company hereafter from discriminating unfairly against a rival line. For instance, the municipalities of this country are going in for a municipal system. But when the Bell Telephone Company or any other that at the present controls the business-as has been the case in the United States-hears that a new telephone system is being started they starve it out by competitive rates. In some places where a rival telephone system has been started and has been giving subscribers telephone service at from $25 to $35 a year, the big monopoly has come in and said to the local users of the new system : We will give you telephone service at $2 or $3 a year for three years if you will sign an agreement witli us. They will not be able to do that by this Bill. They will have to treat every city and every village under like circumstances in a like way. There is also a provision that if the government desires to take over the lines the price to be paid therefor shall be subject to arbitration if the two parties cannot agree. The final clause is a repeal of a very obnoxious general Act that was passed in this country some years ago. I referred to it last session. It was done in the interests of the Bell Telephone Company, as I now find. This little Act that was put through this parliament some ten or fifteen years ago, was to the effect that the words ' telephone' and 'telephonic' were not to be construed ns ' telegraph ' and ' telegraphic,' notwithstanding the Act that the English courts had years preceding held they were one and the same thing. It is because of that little Act that the telephone companies to-day do not come under the Telegraph Companies Act. I propose in this Bill to repeal that clause. I regard this Bill as a very important one. I have had it drafted by a rather eminent counsel, it has been thought over very carefully. It is on the line of the petitions that are being sent into this House every day. I hope that when it comes before the House we will have the co-operation of the House and especially the cooperation of the government in giving the public some kind of control, some kind of regulation, of what is becoming one of the great monopolies of this country, and a monopoly that up to the present time does


William Findlay Maclean: not treat the public fairly. The Bell Telephone Company have asked this parliament to increase their powers of capitalization and for other great privileges. But in asking for these privileges they have not been [DOT] willing to make any concessions to the public. Now, I am not Introducing this Bill with any antagonistic spirit to the Bell Telephone Company, but I am applying to the telephone companies the same general principles which this parliament has seen fit to apply to telegraph companies and to railway corporations.


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

[Stage Direction]
Geo. Riley, Esq., member for the electoral division of the city of Victoria, B.C., introduced by the Prime Minister (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher).

Mr. E. A.: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 3) to amend the Railway Act. He said : This Bill which relates to cattle guards is the same Bill as was introduced here by me last session, and which I am sorry to say did not get further than the committee stage, having been referred to a special committee. The law at present does not require railway companies to keep up cattle guards at crossings except as against animals under the control of a human being, and the Bill seeks to protect cattle when passing along a highway where there are railway crossings. It has been said that there is an ancient but unwritten rule that no member shall be allowed to carry a Bill through parliament during his first session; perhaps that accounts for the disaster that befell this Bill last session. But that time has now passed, and I hope this Bill may be more lucky during the present session.


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

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Campbell for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Before dealing with the particular point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House to-day, I desire to refer for a moment to a few paragraphs of the address.
In the paragraph relating to the assassination of President McKinley, I suppose the government really voices the feelings

not only of this country but of the civilized world, in saying that the time has come when legislation should be adopted to prevent, if possible, the repetition of such horrible crimes as the one which was perpetrated last year. However, as the paragraph states that we should join our efforts to the efforts of the United States, I merely wish to make a reservation. The tone of the press of the United States at the time of the assassination of President McKinley, and since, does not warrant us, I think, in promising to follow them in whatever legislation they may choose to adopt. We should not forget that anarchy and its doctrines, and its apostles, were not bred by the exercise of free speech and action, but were bred by the exercise of tyranny; and we should take proper care in seeking to extirpate this evil that we do not create another evil. Sir, if anarchism has found its way to America and threatens to increase here, it is not so much by reason of the existence of free institutions as of the debasement of moral ideas in modern life. Unfortunately for the neighbouring country, while it has shown during the last century the greatest development of material resources and the most wonderful material progress, the American people have been constantly taught that the possession of wealth, the accumulation of wealth, the combination of wealth, is the one great ideal to which humanity should look forward, and under this teaching the way has been prepared for the development of these anarchistic theories. The evil cannot be cured by law alone. I think the existence of the evil is due chiefly to the education which has been given to the people. But as long as the nation insists that in the common schools of the country nothing but technical education should be afforded to the young, as long as the old principle is forgotten that at the same time a child is taught the elements of science he should also be taught the elements of the moral law and be guided throughout life by the fear of God and by strict adherence to moral and religious principles, X fear that very little improvement can be expected from the operation of any laws that may be adopted. I say no more on this subject; but, while talking about the United States I may say that I was very much astonished with one word that fell from the lips of the right hon. the leader of the government relating to the Alaskan boundary. The right hon. gentleman said:-
Neither have we mentioned in the speech of His Excellency, the Alaskan boundary matter, and the reason why we have omitted a reference to it Is simply because it is to-day in the very same position it was in last year. It has made no progress since then.
And later on :
I have to say to my hon. friend-
3}
Referring to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax).
That we have pressed as much as we could ; nay more, I may say that we have pressed in season and out of season, on the Imperial authorities to bring that matter to a close.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is an exact picture of the situation, but I think also that it is to be regretted that between last session, and this session, the British government have been brought to consent to the repeal of the Glayton-Bulwer treaty. And, to all appearances, this has been done with the tacit consent of the government, whilst the rights of Canada and the rights of Great Britain in the Alaskan boundary have not made one step of progress. I am not referring to what passed in the Anglo-American Commission as X am precluded from it, but I am speaking of what was the general impression in England, in the United States and in Canada. No later than the months of November and December last, the then Minister of Justice in this government, the Hon. David Mills, whose authority on constitutional and international matters cannot be disputed, published two most remarkable articles in the ' Empire Review ' of Great Britain, stating that Great Britain could not and would not abandon her rights in Nicaraguan affairs unless compensation should be given Canada in regard to the Alaskan boundary. Where stands the question to-day ? In the Clay-ton-Bulwer treaty Great Britain had rights with the United States affecting only the continent of America. And she has now abandoned those rights without any regard to the interests of her Canadian subjects, and has not exacted anything for them. The only other treaty where she had purely continental rights, there was a proper cause for the application of the Munroe doctrine, it was this one having reference to Nicaraguan affairs and to the Alaskan boundary in which American interests were at stake. There was no question of bringing America under European influences. There were two questions in which Great Britain and the United States had rights. It was always said-and so much so that last year it was a current issue in the public press of the United States-that the stumbling block in the way of repealing the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was the obstinacy of the Canadian government in refusing, and refusing very rightly and very properly, to consent to the repeal of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty without compensation being obtained from the United States in the matter of the Alaskan boundary. However, a motion is on the Order paper for the correspondence relating to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and I hope that sound doctrine which was so well exposed in the British press by the late Minister of Justice will be made clear so that we will know the reason why the situ-

ation has changed so quickly and so thoroughly in a few days.
Now, as far as the paragraph relating to exhibitions is concerned, X entirely concur with the opinion put into the mouth of His Excellency. I had the advantage this last summer of visiting the Glasgow exhibition ; and it is a pleasure for me to say here in compliment to the hon. Minister of Agriculture and to his officials that the display of Canadian products at the exhibition was made not only in the most artistic way, but in the most practical way. The effect was heightened by the visit of the hon. minister who took every occasion to address the English and Scotch public. Our exhibition at Glasgow coupled with the visit of the hon. Minister of Agriculture has done Canada a great deal of good.
So far as exhibitions at large are concerned, I simply wish to make one suggestion In all friendship to the government. In every exhibition where we take a hand It should be made an absolute condition, either with the directors of these exhibitions, or with representatives of the British government when the British empire at large takes part in it, that Canadian products should not only be exhibited separately but the lists of competitors and the prizes should be given separately. We have been told very often that we have grown to be a nation. Twenty-five years ago I suppose we were not a nation ; but nevertheless, at the Centennial exhibition at Philadelphia, our representatives imposed upon the British officials the obligation of having special lists prepared of the Canadian exhibits and of having special lists of the prizes given. So that when the prizes were awarded, foreign purchasers could know, when looking at the list of winners, that one who had been awarded a bronze silver or gold medal, was a Canadian producer. At the Paris Exposition, twenty-four years later on, the names of Canadian prize winners on the lists were mixed up with the British, Australian and New Zealand competitors ; so that when they came to be looked over, the foreign purchaser looking through a list of fifty names, for instance, would not probably see the name of a Canadian producer, but would be more likely to call upon the merchant or manufacturer of the big cities of England than upon the merchant or manufacturer of Canadian cities.
If foreign exhibits are going to be made by Canada, it is upon one very straight condition that we should exhibit, and this condition is that we should exhibit as Canadians, that the prizes should be awarded to us as Canadians, it should be known that a certain number of Canadians have won prizes and their names should not be mixed up with those of other exhibitors coming from all parts of the empire.
Now, coming to the question of trade Mr. BOTJRASSA.
agents, I may say that I concur entirely in the projected policy of the government. I think it is a very good move and a move that should be extended ; but I may be allowed to add that this move will bring its full and proper fruit only when Canada secures the right of herself making her foreign commercial relations. Should we have agents at Paris, Bordeaux, Berlin, Hamburg or any other foreign city, foreigners will come to them to inquire about the laws of the country and the conditions upon which trade can be done with Canada. If we are bound to say that we cannot negotiate any arrangement whatever with a foreign country with which improved trade relations are sought we hamper our trade relations. I hope this will be one of the questions which the right hon. leader of the government and his colleagues will put before the Imperial conference this summer. It is perfectly useless for us to boast of being a nation, it is perfectly useless for us to seek to develop our trade if by becoming a nation we cannot exercise one of the most essential prerogatives of a nation, which is the full and complete control of its foreign relations and of trade matters especially.
This brings me to the two paragraphs relating to the coronation of His Majesty the King and to the Imperial conference which is going to take place next summer. I am not going to speak at length on this because I have also put on the Order paper a motion asking for the production of the correspondence and papers which have passed between the Canadian and the Imperial governments on that matter. I simply wish to draw attention to the fact that in these two paragraphs the question of trade only is mentioned. Of course, I have not seen that which I hope the government will give us the advantage of seeing before the session is over : the terms of the invitation sent by Mr. Chamberlain to the colonial governments and the terms of the acceptance of that invitation. But there are past facts which should be made the lesson of the future.
In 1897, without this country knowing it, although parliament was in session, an invitation was sent to Canada as well as to ail the other colonies asking that representatives be sent to England, not merely to establish trade relations between the various parts of the British Empire, but also to take steps that would have the effect of blending the various parts of the empire together, both socially and politically, and further to consider the organization of the military defence of the empire. My intention is not to bring forward any controversial subject to-day, and therefore I shall not dwell upon that 'matter at any length. I do say, however, that unless Mr. Chamberlain's mind has changed much during the last four years-and I do not think that his reputation would lead to the conclusion that it has-

there are other changes than changes in trade matters contemplated. I hold that we should not now be placed in the same position as we were placed in 1897, of seeing our representatives go to London without our knowing exactly what are the subjects to be treated of at that imperial conference. What were the terms of the invitation of 1897 ? In his official despatch, dated January 28th, 1897, Mr. Chamberlain wrote :
Should this invitation be accepted by the premiers of, the self-governing colonies there presence in London would afford a most valuable opportunity for the discussion of many subjects of the greatest interest to the empire ; such as commercial union, colonial defence, representation of the colony, legislation with regard to immigrants from Asia and elsewhere, and other similar subjects.
That was a very broad programme, but it was never made known to the Canadian people. An order in council was adopted on the 15th of April by the Canadian government, and this order in council I have found in the British blue-books. Well, I don't think a Canadian should be compelled to search the British blue-books for information about what the Canadian government is doing. This was the report from the sub-committee of the Privy Council of Canada :
The sub-committee further join in the hope expressed by the Right Hon. Secretary of State that it may be found possible to take advantage of the assemblage of the premiers of the selfgoverning colonies for the discussion of the many and important questions of interest to the empire, to which he has referred. The subcommittee unite most .sincerely in the hope that the result of the approaching celebration may be such as will tend powerfully .to cement the union between the mother country and her colonies, both socially and politically.
The House was then in session and continued in session for some months after. We had the announcement that the Prime Minister was going to represent ns, and while I do not quarrel with any man who is in favour of changing the relations that may exist between Great Britain and Canada, I do say that when the Canadian government sent representatives to England with the object of discussing a change in these relations, the least that the Canadian parliament and Canadian people should expect is that they would be informed of it by the government, and not be obliged to search in British blue-books for an expression of opinion by the Canadian government on such an important matter.
Coming to the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne which relates to the census, I may remark that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) criticised the government quite violently in this regard. I do not think that the facts justify the hon. gentleman in that criticism. What is the use of bringing forward in this House the argument : that because the Liberal party of some years ago accused the government of the day of pursuing a policy which caused
the slow growth of the population, the opposition of to-day should say: ' This paragraph in the Speech from the Throne is not founded on fact because the increase in the population during tlje Liberal regime is no greater than it was under Conservative rule V For my part I believe that the government has painted the situation in its true light. There is no doubt that the result of the census lias been disappointing, but there is no doubt either that this paragraph in the Speecli from the Throne is perfectly true :
There is good reason also to believe that the increase of population during the latter half of the decade has been very greatly, in excess of the average of former years and that in the near future we may look for a much more rapid growth than occurred during the period covered by the last two censuses.
The constituency which I represent is in the midst of a colonization district, and I am myself a witness to the fact that during the first five years of the last census, not only was settlement at a standstill, but the people of our farming districts were leaving daily for the large Canadian cities and the United States. I believe-and this without auy idea of flattering the government-that from 1891 to 1896 the increase in our population was at a standstill, not because the Conservatives were in power, but because of circumstances into which 1 am not going now to enter, our people emigrated more at that time than at any previous period. Within the last five years, twenty new parishes have been constituted in the region of the Gatineau, and in the La Lievre Valley and the Rouge Valley. Between 189G and 1900, in my own constituency alone, not speaking of the neighbouring constituencies, six new parishes have been organized for religious and municipal purposes. In the district of Labelle the increase during the last ten years was 6,000, but I firmly believe that the whole of that increase took place during the last five years.
There is no doubt that something should be done to encourage and increase our population. The hon. the leader of the opposition has suggested a stronger help to industries, but for my part I would suggest a stronger help to farming and to colonization. The hon. gentleman has pointed out that industries in Cape Breton have attracted a large influx of population, hut he has also admitted that there has been an enormous decrease in the rest of the province of Nova Scotia. The hon. gentleman may believe that were it not for the coal and steel industries of Cape Breton, these people would perhaps have remained in the rest of the province of Nova Scotia, but while it is better to have these people working in the mines and steel works of Cape Breton than to have them go to the United States, it would be still better to keep them on the farms. After nil the bone and sinew of our country is its farming population. This is a farming community.


William Findlay Maclean: That is not so.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes. The true basis of a country is its farming population.


William Findlay Maclean: That is not so.


Mr. FRASER.: You are differing from your leader.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Manufacturing industries do immense good in the country, but I say that the solid basis of a country is the prosperity of the farming community.


William Findlay Maclean: And the industries.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I say that the industries should be developed and should be supplied by the farmers, and that both should help each other.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But to develop the industries to such a point as to attract the country people to the cities without at the same time trying to promote settlement in the country is, in my opinion, bad policy. I am nearly as much of a protectionist as the hon. gentleman is ; I have always admitted it in this House. I am not a protectionist on principle. I am a protectionist because I consider protection our only safeguard against the trade invasions of the United States. But I say that along with a policy that will prevent American industries destroying Canadian industries, we should have a policy for giving a strong impetus to farming and settlement.
Again, I must pay a compliment to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). I am not always in the habit of paying compliments to ministers, though whenever I can do so, I do it with pleasure. I will also make a suggestion to the hon. gentleman. He and his officials have done a great deal to develop the farming industries of this country, especially in the market which is our most natural market-the British market-the most natural, that is, while we are deprived of the American market. I would ask the hon. gentleman if it would not be possible to adopt some scheme whereby greater uniformity of dairy products might be attained. If there is one impediment to our trade in cheese and butter, especially in butter, it is the fact that there is not sufficient control over its manufacture. One reason for this is the too great number of small factories. It has been suggested in the province of Quebec that the provincial legislature should do something in this matter ; but as that would be an interference with the constitution, which refers to the federal parliament the control of trade, I would ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who has already done something for the establishment of cold chambers in the factories, if something could not also be done to discourage the building of small factories, which cannot make good products, but which try to compete witli the best factories, and tend to spoil our markets.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: With regard to the settlement of the country, I do not think it is just that the whole burden of colonization should rest upon the provincial government, I speak of those of tlie older provinces. In the western provinces the federal government, having control of the lands, fulfils the duty which in the older provinces devolves upon the provincial governments. We sometimes hear complaints of the heavy debt of the province of Quebec ; but that debt is in a great measure due to the fact that the provincial government, though it has sometimes made mistakes, like other governments, has striven to keep the people of the province in the province. The result is not enormous, yet the province of Quebec is the only province in the Dominion which shows an increase in the rural population. In the other provinces the increase of population is confined to the cities. What is the reason for this difference V It is because the province of Quebec has spent money generously for the building of bridges, colonization roads and railroads, in order to open up the virgin parts of the province. I would like to see the federal government take a hand in this work. The provinces are not rich, their revenues are limited, and whenever there is an increase of population in any province, it is an increase of consumers, who add to the revenues of the federal government, but do not add anything to the revenues of the provincial government. On the contrary, they are a cause of more expenditure on the part of the province, on colonization roads, bridges and other improvements. Therefore, wherever there is a possibility of the federal government assisting in development and colonization work, it should be done.
Another paragraph of the speech upon which I want to say a word is that referring to the projected line of steamships to South Africa. I may say frankly that I am opposed to it-not on grounds of sentiment, but because I think there are many other countries with which Canada could d3?elop a better trade. Very little permanent trade can be expected in South Africa. The mines will no doubt be reopened, and wiil no doubt flourish, because the tyrannical government of Mr. Kruger having been done away with, the mine-owners will be in a position to introduce their slavery system, which they had under British rule at Kimberley. But that trade, after all, is only a matter of a few years. The most hopeful expectations held out by expert engineers give to the mines of South Africa a probable existence of forty or fifty years, or perhaps seventy-five years at the utmost. Then, with the lines of communication already established with Great Britain, Germany, France and the United States, it is not likely that Canada can eider into a successful competition with these countries. Moreover, farming in South Africa has been destroyed, at any

rate, for years to come. The country has been devastated as Western Germany was devastated by Marshall Turenne over two hundred years ago.
The British government are proposing to organize a system of state-aided emigration to South Africa. Protests have been made against this in various colonies. The Toronto ' Globe ' had an article last summer, in which it said that it was a poor return for the sacrifices which Canada and the other colonies had made for England to find England helping with her mighty influence and capital the settlement of South Africa at the expense of the other colonies. I do not know what has been the result of these protests. I hope that before the session is over the government will announce that they have protested most strongly against such a project ; and when it is stated that the British government and the local authorities in South Africa are going to try to retain as settlers in South Africa our young men who have gone there, at the expense of Canada, to fight the battles of the empire, surely we are not going to make matters easier by establishing a direct line of steamships from Canada to South Africa. It is not my purpose to discuss that question to-day; but even if it was good policy for Canada to engage in the war in South Africa, surely there is not a man in this House who will assert that it is a proper policy for the Canadian government and parliament to help the British authorities to settle South Africa at the expense of this country.
This naturally brings me to the charge that was made against the government by the hon. leader of the opposition and his deputy, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) for not having mentioned in the Speech from the Throne the sending of the third contingent to South Africa.
I shall not discuss that question this afternoon, for I think it is of sufficient importance to form the subject of special debate and I intend moving later on for all the correspondence relating on the matter. But I wish merely to observe that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) are not in a position to arraign the government for not having announced this policy as a government measure, in the Speech from the Throne. When the policy was inaugurated, when the principle was laid down, that the Canadian government should commit itself and future governments to the participation of Canada in British wars, the two hon. gentlemen were the first to rise and unite with the government in the attempt to crush those few members who claimed for the Canadian parliament the right of independence and self control. Therefore the right to condemn the government for its action in this connection rests only with those few men who voted to proclaim that the independence of the Canadian parliament was paramount to Cecil Rhodes' South African scheme.
Before I leave this question I wish to make a reply to the right hon. First Minister, which I was debarred from making last session as the right hon. gentleman spoke after me. My right hon. friend taunted me last year, and repeated his taunt this session, that I had asked the Canadian parliament to blame the administration for not having prevented young Canadians going to fight in South Africa. Sir, I am too great a lover of liberty to have ever made such a proposition. I never asked this parliament to entertain for a moment the idea of preventing any body going to fight in South Africa or elsewhere. But there is an immense difference between preventing young Canadians going to fight in South Africa and allowing the British government to do in Canada, what they never before attempted to do, even when we were but a Crown colony. What I objected to last session, and what I shall always object to, as long as I represent any portion of the Canadian people, is that Canada should be made a recruiting ground for the British army. In taking this ground I was supported last year by such loyal organs as the Montreal ' Witness ' and the Toronto ' Star.' These organs took this position, that while England, whenever she wanted men to fight her battles, should be allowed to obtain them freely in Canada, the British authorities should not be led to entertain the hope of making Canada a recruiting ground and coming here to get recruits which they could not obtain at home. The sending of the last contingent was not merely helping a few young men to go and fight in South Africa, but it was the beginning of a regular system of recruiting in this country for the British army- a system taken up four years ago by the British government, announced in the British Houses of parliament every year during the four last sessions, and the subject of correspondence between the British and Canadian governments during all that time,-if we are to credit the declarations made by British authorities in the parliament of Great Britain. On the merits of the war, I shall not say anything at present. But I wish to tender my sincere thanks to my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) for having at last sounded the true note on that question. The right hon. Prime Minister has told us that this is a war for justice and liberty. The Liberals in England say it is a war of conquest and subjugation.


Mr. FLINT.: No.


Mr BOTJRASSA.: Yes, except a very small liandful of them.


Thomas Barnard Flint: Only a few cranks say so.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is a matter of appreciation. My hon. friend says a few cranks. Well, they comprise men such as Mr. Bryce, the Right Hon. John Morley, Sir

Henry Campbell Bannerman ; and if we had a few such men in this House, it would be the better for the country. It is cranks like those who have done much to make England what she is to-day, and to give to our country the liberties we now enjoy. And were they to disappear, it would be an unfortunate thing for this country, for we would be abandoned to the policy of men who proclaim that military authorities have the right to go into free British colonies and suspend the operation of the law, and that which is England's greatest glory-the liberty of the citizen. To come back to my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), he told us that all this trouble in South Africa was really at bottom nothing but a railway question-that it arose out of Cecil Rhodes' dream of a railway from the Cape to Cairo.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: While I am one of those who are ready to do much in order to perpetuate the power and glory of England and in order that Canada may remain as long as possible under free British institutions, I am not ready to take the money of the Canadian people and spend it in helping Cecil Rhodes to build a railway from the Cape to Cairo, and therefore I cannot agree with my hon. friend from East York in denouncing the government for not having expended a little more money on the troops who are fighting to build that railway. My hon. friend, like myself, is much interested in the railway question in Canada. Well, we have not too much money here and are not in a position to give away any of it as a gift to Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Chamberlain in order to assist them in their pet project.
This naturally brings me to the railway question ; and let me say that the motion I have prepared and my remarks accompanying it, are not directed with any view of embarrassing the government or of criticising the policy of the government from a party standpoint. I notice in the Speech from the Throne a reference to the application made by the Canadian Pacific Railway for an increase of its capital and the paragraph concludes with these words :
My ministers availed themselves of the opportunity to stipulate that the long pending question of the power of the Governor in Council to regulate the tolls of the company should be submitted to the courts for the judicial decision The correspondence and other papers will be laid before you.
This brings up a very important question. Here is a contract which was made, some twenty or twenty-five years ago, with a powerful corporation, probably the biggest railway corporation in the world under one control; and one of the powers, which we were supposed to have reserved in that contract, was the control of the rates by the government. Now, this is not the first favour that the Canadian Pacific Railway has asked of this parliament. Under all; governments, they have come here year after Mr. BOURASSA.
year to get additional favours. And, now, we are faced with this situation-that it is only after we have given them millions upon millions over and above what they were entitled to under their contract, after we have given them charter after charter empowering them to control small branch lines that we are told that we are to have -not additional power-but simply the right to submit a question to the courts. Are they going to obtain their power to increase their capital before the decision of the court is reached ? Are they going to obtain first the favour they ask, leaving us to a doubtful decision of the courts ? Sir, I want to be perfectly clear on this point. From a certain point of view I am a Canadian Pacific Railway man. It is true, like all other Liberals, I, for many years denounced the Canadian Pacific Railway as one of the greatest scandals in existence-a scandal brought to pass by the Conservative party-and a menace to Canada. When I look only at Canada's interest, when I do not go outside of this country, sometimes I am inclined to think that such a huge corporation, extending its powers over all the provinces of this country, more powerful in itself than all the other railway companies in this country, may but be a menace to Canada. But, when I go across the border, when I come in contact with foreign capitalists, as I did when I was in Washington with the Anglo-American commission, when I hear, as I did-and I do not speak of what passed in the commission-when I hear foreign railway men tell me that, when they press upon the Canadian government the adoption of railway policy similar to that of the United States, when they urge the control of railways under similar provisions to those enforced by the Inter-State Commission of the United States, they have no intention of striking at the Grand Trunk Railway-that the Grand Trunk Railway is practically an American railway-but that the only railway which they have a grudge against, the only railway at which they are aiming is the Canadian Pacific Railway -when I look at the question from that point of view, then, I am a Canadian Pacific Railway man.
But that does not change the general proposition, that the time has come, as I believe, when this country should have a railway policy. We have no railway policy; we cannot pretend that we have. We give charters to almost everybody who asks for them, and we give plenty of money to those to whom we grant charters, reserving to ourselves but a very slight nominal control-and even that control we do not exercise ; and, as in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway to-day, we are obliged to ask the intervention of the courts many years after the charter has been given. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has told us-and very

properly-that this was a vitally important question. Railway questions are almost the most vital in every country. And for this excellent reason-the railway industry is the only one that works in connection with every other industry. Whatever' the development of trade, of farming, of manufactures, if we do not have the railway communication to bring our products to the sea-board, all our efforts at production are useless. But, with Canada, there is more in the question even than that. I say that the railway question is the basis of our national existence. And why ? Without railways there would be no Canada. Canada geographically speaking, and looking at it from a purely natural point of view, is an absurd country. It was never intended by providence that a country should be divided from its neighbour by a line of three thousand miles not based upon any natural boundaries, whilst that country is divided within itself by obstacles that can never be wholly removed. We have three of four countries in one ; and had it not been for the construction of the Intercolonial Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, the maritime provinces and British Columbia would be now part of the American republic. Well, Sir, by building railways, we have given existence to this country; but the time has come, I think, when railways may be the cause of disrupting the nationality of this country which they have been the means of building up.
I am not going to enter into a long discussion of the railway policies of the various European countries. The one I am most familiar with is that of the French Republic. And, in my opinion, the French Republic has attained nearly the point of perfection so far as its railway policy is concerned. France started as we did, by granting subsidies; but did not continue that policy very long. Soon afterwards they adopted the system of granting annuities of ten or fifteen years to railways. Then, they abolished both subsidies and annuities, and gave a guarantee of interest as well as a guarantee of sinking fund. And what is the result ? The first is-that the state is interested in seeing that no railway shall be built unless it is useful and will bring in revenue. The second is that the shareholders and the men who loan money on the debentures knowing that the interest and also the sinking fund are guaranteed, will always give full value for the security. The issue of watered stock for building railways is unknown in France; all the money handed over to the railway companies for stock and debentures is put into the railways. The government does not give a permanent charter to a railway company, but gives a charter for ninety years. You may say that that is a pretty long charter. But, in a nation's life it is not so very long. The granting of
this form of charter keeps the ownership of the railway in the. government, while it does not charge the government with the duties of administration. Therefore, to compare our control of the Intercolonial Railway with such a system of government ownership is of no value, because the systems have no relation. The government ownership is clearly asserted-a company is not allowed to transfer its capital, or its route, or its rolling stock, without the permission of the government that owns it; yet, at the same time, the government is not loaded with the care, the responsibility and the inconveniences that would necessarily result from administering the road. After the expiry of the franchise, the whole thing returns to the government. Those who have received annuities are obliged to compute those annuities at 4 per cent, and the amount thus ascertained is deducted from the capital paid to them. In the case of those that received a guarantee of interest and sinking fund, the sinking fund is accumulated to be deducted from the price of the purchase. The guarantee is lost, to a certain extent, but that is compensated by the fact that, every time the net surplus of the company pays more than the interest that is guaranteed, it goes back to the state. For instance, supposing that 4 per cent is the guarantee for the railway, and the revenues of the railway yield only 3 per cent, then, the government pays 1 per cent to the shareholders and the holders of the debentures. But, if the amount paid by the railway company is 5 per cent, then 1 per cent goes to the State for compensation for what has been paid. The amount that had to be paid by the state increased for a number of years. But now it is decreasing, and the least optimistic of economists in France are able to point to the day when not only the railways of France will not be a cause of taxes laid upon the people, but will be actually a source of revenue, and their capital value a means of helping to extinguish the national debt. I do not say at jrresent that the French system should be applied here. I arn simply pointing out these faets to instance a country that is solving this railway problem in a marvellous way.
Now, I admit that our condition in this respect has arisen from the absurd physical form of our country. We have been obliged to build railways and to subsidize railways where no revenue could be expected. But, Sir, we have been wrong in this-we have granted too many charters. We have given charters right and left, not in accordance with the requirements of the country, but simply because a few schemers would come here-men without capital and without responsibility. To these men we would give the privilege of bonding their railway for more than it was worth and would give subsidies so large that, with the proceeds of the bonds and of the stock they

could raise euougli to build the railway. What has been the result where railways were really needed ? The result has been that enormous profits have been gained by railway constructors without any return either of interest or of capital to the state. Everything has been lost to the state, and still we have exercised no control over the rates. When anticipations did not marterialize what has been the result ? Those railways have either been stopped in their construction, or new favours have been asked from the government.
A really useful railway, well located and required by the people is of great utility to the country ; but I say a railway which is badly located is most disastrous to the country. Take, for example, the location of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Northwest. In obedience to Imperial considerations, that road, instead of being placed where the natural requirements of the country pointed out, was placed where Imperial considerations would be best served. The result has been that for many years people who wanted to go to the North-west and settle went along the Saskatchewan and Qu'Appelle valley, but people who were attracted by railway communications and by cheap lands and who did not know the real conditions, settled along the Canadian Pacific Railway. Along that railway for 300 or 400 miles in the North-west you have a population that have good railway communication but they are settled on a barren soil with no timber and no water. In the Saskatchewan valley you have a population which was attracted by the natural resources of the country, who took up fertile lands where they could have timber and water. But they suffered from want of good railway communication, and when they had communication they only had it through branches of the Canadian Pacific Railway on which the company naturally were forced by circumstances to charge enormous rates. We can understand the complaints of the people of the North-west against the rates. But it cannot be denied that these rates have been more or less forced on the Canadian Pacific Railway on account of the bad location of the route.
Take the case in our own province where railways have been built for settlement purposes, and what has been the result V Some of those railways have been well located, the country has been opened up, settlers have poured in, and industries have been established. Rut elsewhere, where railways have been built up by a few schemers with the object of obtaining money from the government and then abandoning the railway, what has been the result ? A few traders, a few settlers have been attracted there by the temporary activity arising from the construction of the railway. But when they found out that the circumstances did not warrant them in spending their money in settlement, they left the country. Where Mr. BOURASSA.
did they go ? Did they go back to the old settlement from whence they came ? No. Once they had abandoned their homes in the old townships or parishes and had spent all their money in these new regions where they had been attracted, they then went to the United States. Therefore, I say, Sir, that if some railways have been the means of building up this country and developing its resources, and have attracted emigrants here, on the other hand some railways, owing to the injudicious way in which they have been located, have caused many people to go to the United States. They have discouraged our population, they have inspired our population with a spirit of change, they have taken away from our farmers the desire to remain at home. Once they found out that the country was not a favourable one in which to settle they have removed and gone to another country. Take the regions traversed by the first part of the Northern Railway in the province of Quebec. There is a country where millions of dollars have been expended by federal and provincial governments to secure settlers. During the ten years from 1881 to 1891 the county of Terrebonne only increased its population by 80, though the natural increase must have been at least 3,000. In that region where a colonization railway was improperly located the result has been that it helped the people to leave the country, and that was all.
There is another important feature of this question which I wish to touch upon before concluding. By putting on the market unproductive stocks, railways have attracted British capitalists to invest in shares and to guarantee bonds on railways which did not justify the expense, and the result has been to discourage British financiers from investing in any Canadian enterprises. You have only to speak to a British capitalist of Canadian railways to make him shut his purse at once. When they saw that the Canadian government was granting charters to build railways, and that federal and provincial governments were giving subsidies, naturally they thought that the speculation was a safe one. They could not believe that a new country which desired to develop its resources would squander money upon any wild-cat schemes. The granting of these charters and subsidies, and the immense powers which the government had conferred on railway companies, have resulted in attracting British capital where the investors did not sufficiently examine the facts. They did not send any one to examine the circumstances, and the country which the railway was going to traverse, they were assured it was a good speculation by the action of the government, they invested their money, and the result is now. I am told, that they will not listen to you when you propose to them to invest in a Canadian railway. The only foreign capital we can expect is American capital. The Americans are getting control of our railways, of this

there can be no doubt. Let me quote a paragraph that appeared in the month of August last in a paper published in New York, which is reputed to be more or less an exponent of the personal opinions of President Roosevelt, I mean the ' Expansionist,' of New York. After speaking of the trade relations which are developing between Canada and the United States, it says :
It is satisfactory to know that attention is being given by responsible and competent men in this country to the policy indicated in the foregoing and that advantage will be taken of the opportunity afforded by financial conditions to gain control of the transportation systems of Canada, as American capital is becoming a dominant factor in the development of Canada's forests and mineral resources. The two cannot be separated, but must be linked for the common benefit.
Not for the common benefit of both countries, but for the common benefit of both classes of American capitalists. Now, Sir, the Prime Minister told us the other day :
If some American capitalists invest their capital in our railways, what is it for ? To so develop those railways as to enable them to carry the trade not only of Canada but of the United States to the seaboard. What seaboard may I ask ? The nearest and the cheapest, that is, the St. Lawrence river. Whoever has the control of any railroad will administer it for the benefit of his company, in order to make it yield the best returns possible. In my opinion, in the matter of transportation, geography is altogether in favour of Canada ; and far from frowning upon the investment of American capital seeking investment in these industries,
I altogether welcome it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, certainly, if American capitalists would come to this country as German, as British, as French capitalists, and invest their money in Canadian enterprises, and so to speak, make them Canadian, I would not have the slightest objection whatever. X have no objection to Mr. Eddy coming from the United States and developing that admirable industry which has done so much for the prosperity of Ottawa and Hull ; or to Mr. Clergue, or to the company at Shawinigan Falls, or at Grand'-Mere, coming to Canada and developing the pulp industry. X have no objection of any kind to American citizens possessing any amount of capital coming in to assist in developing the country. My objection is not at all to be taken from that point of view ; but it is not capitalists of this kind that come here to take possession of Canadian railways and parade them as American railways. When a company like the New York Central takes hold of the Canada Atlantic Railway, when a company with a capital of $200,000,000 invested in the United States, takes hold of a small Canadian road worth only ten or twenty million dollars, it does not mean that profits will be sought on the Canadian route, built with Canadian capital for the benefit of the Canadian people, but that the Canadian road will be used if possible to increase the dividends on the
$200,000,000 of American capital. That is the most natural explanation and it cannot be otherwise. It was so last year when ' I .a Patrie' of Montreal denounced the bargain that was entered into between the Manitoba government and Messrs. Mann and Mackenzie as being the attempt of an American syndicate to get hold of our western routes. It was not a question only of Messrs. Pierrepont Morgan and Hill making a few thousands of dollars of dividends in Canada; it was a question of the Northern Pacific Railway getting rid of Canadian competition and of using these new routes in the Canadian west to develop and concentrate the trade of Northern America upon their own routes. To this I take objection, and the strongest objection. I think, when the question is looked upon from that point of view, the Canadian people will never forgive the Canadian parliament for not taking the earliest opportunity of studying this problem. The thing is not always done by American capitalists and in future will not always he done in the way of purchasing railways. If they are bound to purchase a railway they will do it, but if they can, simply, by getting control of the points of communication between Canada and the United States, or if they can, by laying their hands upon our terminal facilities without being obliged to expend their money for the purpose, secure control of our railways, they will certainly do it. Therefore, the question is a broader one than the mere question of the buying or selling of a railway. In the city of Montreal, three years ago, a gentleman named Conners came there with an organized syndicate and made a most wonderful proposition to the people of Montreal for the building of elevators in that city. I am not an authority on these matters; I am speaking of them simply as a witness having no special interest in Montreal. At the time I asked myself what might be the interest of that man. With any man in general and with an American in particular, we should always put that question to ourselves. I knew that the Conners syndicate had large interests in Buffalo. I said to myself :	That man cannot have any other
purpose than to prevent building elevators in Montreal so as to keep the trade at Buffalo. But, people will say that he was risking money. If he was risking money he was securing in the rates charged at Buffalo greater profits in one year than the whole of the money lie lost in three years here, and it was still a good speculation. Opposite the city of Quebec is the town of Levis. There is an American gentleman who has been hoarding in Lfivis for a few weeks and who has been buying up the whole of what is left of the shore lands. It was the firm belief and I heard it expressed quite often by a gentleman well qualified to speak upon the subject, the late Mr. Dobell, that Levis was destined to become one of the greatest ports in Canada because there were at that port such splen-

did water facilities. Has all that gone into the hands of an American syndicate ? What is this gentleman buying it for ? Is he buying it for Mr. Seward Webb ? We do not know. Perhaps he is buying it rather with the object of preventing any company or even the Canadian government, that will try to use the Intercolonial Railway, to develop the port of Levis. There would be a good speculation in it for him.
How are we protected by the public press of the country on this question 1 When it was known that the New York Central Railway Company had concluded to buy the Canada Atlantic Railway, I expected that the organs of public opinion in Ottawa, that have shown very often their loyalty to the British crown, and to the country, would express their indignation and fear. Not at all. They said there might be some danger but now we are going to reap some benefit; some big buildings are going to be erected in Ottawa. I may say that there is no city in Canada where two or three newspapers are not ready to help American capital to get possession of Canadian interests by leading public opinion in that direction provided that a few paltry local interests are safeguarded. I think it is the duty of parliament to consider how the interests of Canada are affected-look at the danger which is threatening. Let us take the example of the Grand Trunk Railway. It is not only a question of holding shares with these great railways. Here was a railway that was built with the money of the Canadian people, that obtained year after year favours from the Canadian parliament. No later than two or three years ago they had a grant from the Canadian parliament to widen the Victoria bridge, and they made a contract with the Canadian government. I do not want to discuss again that question; I do not say the contract was more favourable to the government than to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, but from the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway accepted it, it appears to have been a good bargain for the Grand Trunk Railway Company. One year after that grant was made they took the whole of the trade which they gathered from tiie west and carried it to the city of Portland. Here is a railway that starts at Chicago upon American territory, that pnsses along Canadian shores and reaps the fruits of the economy and industry of the Canadian people, which, passes our Canadian ports, deprives Canadian labourers of the profit of handling the freight which it carries, and deprives Canadian steamship lines of the profit of carrying that freight to Europe.


William Findlay Maclean: And gives the Americans cheaper rates than Canadians.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Another point that I am not going to enter into, but it is only an additional point. Now, Sir, we have heard a great many things about the Canadian Pacific Railway. Two years ago we heard


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: that on account of the excessive rates charged on the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, a company was about to be formed in British Columbia to acquire and operate coal mines in competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway. That was the apparent reason. I do not know if the other reason given was true or not, but what is the result ? The result is that the Northern Pacific, Mr. Hill's property, having interested a few Canadian gentlemen, and I think even a few parliamentarians in this country, has got hold of coal mines in the west, is going to prevent the Canadian Pacific Railway from getting coal in these mines, is going to establish smelters on the Northern Pacific and carry the trade as much as possible from British Columbia to the American states. We heard the same remarks last year about the Manitoba railway legislation. We have now the Canada Atlantic Railway, which possibly will carry its trade to the port of Boston. The Grand Trunk Railway is carrying its trade to Portland. If we do not put a stop to that kind of a thing-if it be possible to put a stop to it-then before long this country will be divided into four or five sections. It will be no longer one Canada ; it will be five small Canadas, each of which will be a feeder to American transportation companies, to American labour, and to American capital.
From a national point of view, this is a matter of great consequence to us. Trade and commerce are the basis of the relations between all countries, and especially is that so here where our communities are separated by hundreds of miles of barren soil, and uninhabitable regions. The only affinity between British Columbia and the North-west Territories and Manitoba, and the central and eastern provinces is on account of the trade going through the Canadian railways. When British Columbia will do all its business in Seattle and San Francisco ; when Manitoba and the North-west Territories will do all their business in St. Paul and Duluth ; when Quebec and Ontario will do all their business in Portland, Boston, and New York, then the future of Canada as one country and one British colony will not be of long duration. I may be allowed to quote here words uttered last fall by the Countess of Aberdeen, speaking at Dundee. The first sentences merely explain what follows :
Was not the gloom which over-hung the land due in great measure to the fact that this country had departed from the principles of Liberalism and erected in its stead a false (and tyrannical patriotism, before which they must bow down or be crushed ? To throw doubt on the wisdom' or justice of the present government was to brand themselves as traitors. We were squandering our sons and our money on the veldt of South Africa, and allowing Americans to buy up our commercial interests both in this country and in Canada. (' Times,' October 18, 1901.)
Sir, the interest of the British people is aroused on this subject. If they are be-

ginning in England to see the danger of the introduction of American capital-not under the ordinary form which capital uses to introduce itself into a country, but under the form of annexation by piecemeal-it is about time that we in Canada should give our attention to the matter.
It may surprise some members of this House to see that I am so much in earnest about the future of Canada in connection with the railway question. Some may think that there is a good deal of merely apparent sentiment, or of a wish on my part to play on the loyal feeling of this House. Well, it is not my habit to conceal my sentiments. I am as strongly opposed to American annexation as I am to British Imperialism. I am as strongly opposed to seeing the interests of this country merged in the interests of the American Republic, as I am opposed to seeing our interests merged in the Pan-Britannic scheme. Canada is big enough for me; Canada is good enotigh for me, and I want Canada for the Canadian people. Whatever may be our opinion otherwise, that is the policy that must predominate in this country if we do our duty to the Canadian people.
I do not want to make any special suggestion in this matter. I am no authority. I stand here as a witness on this subject. I read what is published, I listen to what is said, I regard what is going on ; that is all. I see that in place of the British pound coming to stimulate the industries of this country as was formerly the case, now we have the American dollar. Well, I have no objection to either the American dollar or the British pound provided one or the other becomes Canadian. I am not moving this amendment as a criticism of the policy of the present government or of the past government. It Is a suggestion I am making. I am asking the government to accept my amendment in the spirit in which I move it, and the spirit in which I move it is this : That the time has come when the whole people of Canada should give their attention to this problem. What is the solution ? I do not know. Surely it is worth while studying the problem. Surely it is worth while finding if there be a solution. All the European countries have given their attention to this same problem. In France they have changed their railway policy three or four times. In Germany the railway policy was one of Bismarck's most ambitious schemes, but of course with his imperial mind he wanted to concentrate the whole of the German railways in the hands of the government. I am not saying that we should adopt the example of Germany or the example of France. I merely say that situated as we are, the railway policy obtrudes itself upon us more than in the case of any other country in the world, because here on this northern continent there are only two nations; one a small nation of five millions settling an immense territory to which railway interests are vital, and the
other a population of seventy-five millions the most aggressive in trade matters of all the nations in the world, trying to outdo foreign capital and energy in every line of industries. It is time for us to be ou our guard. If the government finds proper to accept my amendment, my only suggestion would he that there should be appointed a committee of this parliament that would study that question before the session is over, and if necessary that a commission of railway experts be also appointed to study the railway policies of foreign countries, to find out to what extent they would apply to our country, and to see how much of them would be applicable to us under our peculiar circumstances. In fact, I am simply asking that the government should give their attention to this matter and that the opposition should join with them. I believe that that committee should be composed of a very few men, and they being experts in the matter would study the problem and submit their project to the government. If it is not adopted then nothing is lost, but if a satisfactory solution is arrived at great advantage must accrue to the Canadian people. It is in that spirit that I move seconded by Mr. Puttee :
That the time has come when a railway policy should be framed by which the people of this country could expect some return from the enormous sacrifices they have made in order to further the* development of their avenues of trade, and especially in preventing our railway systems from falling under the control of foreign railway corporations.
It will be noticed that I have not referred in the amendment to the introduction of foreign capital, but I have simply referred to the control of foreign railway corporations, which means capital that has been already organized in foreign countries for the building and exploiting of railways to be made channels for the diversion of our commerce to a foreign country. If this amendment be accepted it might probably come in the Speech from the Throne after the paragraph which relates to the extension of the powers of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: Mr. Speaker, the House, I am sure, has listened with a great deal of interest to the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. gentleman from Labelle (Sir. Bourassa). I must pay him this compliment, that he has been moderate. He has undoubtedly raised a very important question indeed, but at the same time a very difficult question to solve ; he has raised, in fact, the whole transportation question. My hon. friend has specially alluded to the intended purchase of the Canada Atlantic Railway by Mr. Webb and his associates. Before he had done so, my friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) had called the attention of the House to the same deal. We all know the location of that railway. It has

one terminus on the Georgian Bay, and the other at Coteau Landing.


Mr. EDWARDS.: No, in the United States.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Its Canadian terminus, I mean. I am glad my hou. triend (Mr. Bourassa) has stated very clearly that the amendment does not imply a want of confidence in the government so far as our railway policy is concerned ; and therefore I would ask him not to insist on his motion. There is no use of placing the House in a false position by having a vote on the motion under these circumstances.
Well, Sir, how could this government prevent Mr. Webb and his associates acquiring the majority of the stock of the Canada Atlantic Railway held by Mr. Booth ? Perhaps it would have been possible for the Canadian government to have bought that stock. I suppose the Canada Atlantic Railway has cost in the neighbourhood of $15,000,000 ; I cannot say exactly what it has cost. We have contributed to it $2,000,000 or thereabouts if I remember rightly. That road is not completed ; it has not reached the city of Montreal. As I said a moment ago, its terminus on Canadian soil is at Coteau Landing, where Sir. Booth has been obliged to build an elevator and establish a line of boats to take his trade to the port of Montreal. Sir. Booth is a large owner pf mills, and he has used his road largely in the interest of his own trade and his own mills, not only in this country but on the other side of the line-because, it may not be generally known, Sir. Booth has large mill property at Burlington.
In connection with his railway Sir. Booth has established a fleet of steamers on the lakes. So far he has not done a very large trade in Canadian grain ; he has specially dealt in American grain and other products. He has succeeded in establishing an international trade. He is carrying American products from Chicago, Milwaukee and Duluth, not only to the port of Montreal, but to Boston. Now, Sir. Speaker, what member of this House holding a responsible position would say that the Canadian government could carry on a fleet of steamers on the lakes and work up a trade with American products? It is not possible; it is out of the question. I have been five and a half years a minister of the Crown, and I know how difficult it is for a man, whatever his power or his ability may be, to decide matters which have to be decided on the spur of the moment. A minister of the Crown cannot take action unless his proposed action has been discussed and agreed to beforehand. How could this government undertake to compete with great American railways ? My hon. friend who was formerly Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) knows that when he was in office he could not have acted in any such way.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: I am very sorry to disagree with some of my friends by saying that I do not welcome as much as others the purchase of Canadian railways by American capital. But how could we help ourselves ? This is the question. I would rather see Mr. Booth keep possession of his road and complete it to the port of Montreal; but Mr. Booth has not done so. I am free to say that he has carried a very heavy load for one man. Mr. Booth has invested a large sum of money. He is a man of enterprise. I venture to say be has invested the last dollar he has.


William Cameron Edwards: That is right.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We could not ask him to do more. The Canadian government could not buy that road. The Canadian parliament would not have approved of our doing so. Now, was there anything else we could have done ? My hon. friend suggested a moment ago a guarantee of the bonds.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my hon. friend will allow me, I have not suggested anything. I have simply spoken of the system that exists in France. All I have suggested is the appointment of a parliamentary committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite understand that. I fully agree that the question is of such importance that we must consider it. But at the same time, having given some attention to the transportation question, I say that the Canadian nation has no reason whatever for alarm if only we are true to ourselves. The railways are not the only means of communication throughout this vast Dominion. We have our waterways, and I hope this parliament will make up its mind never to give up the absolute right of control over our waterways. American capital can buy the Canada Atlantic Railway ; American capital may perhaps one day try to buy the Canadian Pacific Railway; but American capital cannot buy the St. Lawrence River. American capital cannot buy our national heritage on the great lakes. It cannot buy the French River route, a map of which I have placed on the table. Of course, if we should hand over our waterways to private individuals, then American capitalists might buy the whole thing, and on that point I feel just as strongly as my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).
I have just mentioned the French river route. This may not be the proper occasion to say much about that route, but it forms, in my humble opinion, such an important part of our national transportation problem, that I would crave the indulgence of the House while I briefly refer to it. Suppose that to-morrow the Canada Atlantic Railway should be purchased by Mr. Webb and his associates, what would they do with it ? Nobody knows. But no doubt if we equip the ports of Montreal and Quebec properly,

these gentlemen may find it advantageous to send their trade by the Canadian route. That trade has no patriotism is a well known axiom, but nevertheless X agree with my hon. friend that if Mr. Webb and his associates are acting for the New York Central, it is not impossible that they may try to arrange a pool by which the New York route may be benefited at the expense of Montreal. However, the Canada Atlantic Railway is only one route and it has no western connections, which is another reason why it would have been unwise for this government to think of purchasing it. The Canada Atlantic is a mere summer road, and of course a local road, without any western connection whatever, whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway is a through Canadian road. I have heard people say that the Canadian Pacific Railway shares are not all held by Canadians. No doubt thousands of these shares are held in Prance, Germany, Belgium and elsewhere as well as in Canada. But it would be impossible for Mr. Hill and Mr. Morgan and others to buy Canadian Pacific Railway stock to such an extent as to control the road without the Canadian Pacific Railway directors' knowledge. That is out of the question. I was lectured by a Liberal paper, because, a few days ago, in Montreal, I ventured to say that perhaps the day might come when the Canadian government would be placed in the position of having to do what the English government did with the Suez Canal. I hope that day will never come. But speaking for myself I do not hesitate to say that if we ever should discover that Mr. Hill and Mr. Morgan and other American capitalists were taking hold of the Canadian Pacific Railway, our parliament would rise to the occasion and see that sufficient stock was bought by this very government to prevent such a deal. The Canadian nation cannot forget that we have invested both in money and lands $100,000,000 in the Canadian Pacific Railway. Sir, the Canadian Pacific Railway is so located that it will necessarily always be a Canadian railway. Well, in connection with that French river project, I say that with a very small expenditure of money we could easily, within two years give a navigable channel twenty feet deep from Georgian Bay to Lake Nipis-sing. The distance is only sixty-one miles and the elevation to overcome is only sixty.-two feet. I have a complete plan of the work which it would be necessary to carry out in order to give twenty feet depth of navigation. When you have reached Lake Nipissing, you are only 360 miles from Montreal and 290 miles from Toronto. The Grand Trunk Railway is located on the south side of the lake at Callander, while the Canadian Pacific Railway is on the north side at North Bay. It lias been said that, in taking the deep Interest I do in that waterway, I am acting for the Canadian Pacific Railway. Sir. I am an upholder of the Canadian Pacific Railway because it is
a Canadian railway under our control, and because it is a great trans-continental railway, fighting for the trans-continental trade, against five or six powerful American corporations. The Canadian Pacific Railway will undoubtedly benefit by the deepening of the French river, but how much more would the Canadian farmers benefit? I say without hesitation that in one year the farmers of the North-west would benefit to the extent of a couple of million dollars by the deepening of that river. The province of Ontario has a very deep interest in this project. We must not forget that Toronto is a great manufacturing centre, and is connected by the Grand Trunk with Lake Nipissing.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: What is the size of the locks ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Three locks would do the whole thing.


John Graham Haggart: What is the capacity of the boats that will go through them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I
understand that boats carrying 200,000 bushels of grain could navigate that highway. It is, a very deep river indeed-not a small stream but a powerful stream-100 feet deep and fifty deep, and there are only a few obstacles to overcome. There is no engineering difficulty. Between Montreal and North Bay the distance is 364 miles. Between Buffalo and New York by rail the distance is 445 miles. Or in round numbers we have about 350 miles in favour of the Canadian route.
I am told that this French river scheme would kill our canals. Well, we have this year, according to the figures given yesterday before the Winnipeg Board of Trade, in Manitoba and the North-west 65,000,000 bushels of wheat. We have only about nine or ten weeks during the fall to move our Canadian crop. How many boats would it take to carry 25,000,000 bushels of grain by the French river route. It would take a fleet of about twenty boats with a capacity of about 200,000 bushels each. Suppose that we have this year, as I said, 65,000,000 bushels of wheat, how much more may we expect to see growing in our North-west Territories within the next five or ten years ? If our expectations are realized, if our hopes are not deceived, people will settle there in large numbers. If that is so, Sir, we are not going beyond our depth in expressing the hope, the confident hope, that within ten years, we shall have a crop of 200,000,000 bushels of wheat there. As my hon. friend reminds me, Sir Charles Tupper made that prophecy a few years ago. His prophecy has not materialized up to this date. But, this year, we had 100,000,000 bushels of grain, of which 65,000,000 was wheat. I think I am not making a prophecy that will not materialize when I say that it is possible, not only possible, but it is to be expected, that within five or

ten years, we shall have a crop of at least 100,000,000 bushels of wheat in our Northwest. I have estimated that it would require a fleet of twenty boats, carrying 200,000 bushels each to move a crop of 25,000,000 bushels by the French river route. This is on the basis of each boat making a trip a week. There would be plenty of trade left for our Canadian system of canals. I read in the Kingston ' News ' a day or two ago that I was going to destroy that city if this French river scheme went through. Sir, there will be plenty of trade for the Canadian canal and for the French river route as well ; there will be plenty of trade for all the ports and harbours on the lakes. That trade is going to-day to American ports-that cannot be denied. Perhaps that trade will go more and more to American ports if more Canadian railways fall into American hands. But, as X said at the opening of my remarks, the St. Lawrence river is our national property ; and the Ottawa river and the French river are great national properties. When I speak of the project of improving the French river, I mean to convey the idea that it would be the beginning of that great national scheme of deepening the Ottawa river to connect it with the St. Lawrence river at Montreal. But that project would involve such a large expenditure of money that for to-day, I confine myself to the improvement of the French river. I have no data yet of the probable cost of the whole project from Georgian bay to Montreal. I am told that it is estimated to cost in the neighbourhood of one hundred millions. The Canadian government, the Canadian parliament, will not undertake such a vast expenditure of money now. But I think X am within reason, and I think I express the feeling of the large portion of the thinking business men of this country, when I speak as I do of the improvement of the French river. Of course, it must be well understood that I do not intend In any way to pledge the government to any project of that kind now. I am simply expressing the view that, as a member of the House, and even as a minister, I think I have a right to express.


Mr. CLARKE.: If I may ask the minister a question I would like to ask if we are to understand him to say that, in the remarks he has just made, he does not pledge himself or the government to ask an appropriation this session to go on with the improvement of which he has just spoken.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no authority to pledge the House or my colleagues to an expenditure of that kind. I am dealing with the great transportation question and calling attention of the House and the country


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: You are educating the government.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps not my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria), but some men who have less time than some of the rest of us have

	'


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I be allowed to ask another question before I forget it ? I am sure we are deeply indebted to the hon. minister for the information he has given us about the French river route and the advantages to be obtained from the improvements he suggests. I would like to know what is the distance from the termini of the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway to that particular part of the Georgian bay into which the French river empties ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a very small distance indeed. My hon. friend has only to look at the map on the table to see that. The Grand Trunk Railway is located at Calander, on the south side, and the Canadian Pacific Railway at North Bay on the other side. The distance is about three miles, and the two railways are, to-day, actually connected.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the distance from where the two railways meet to the point on the Georgian bay at which the French river empties ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The distance between Lake Nipissing and the Georgian bay is 61 miles.


John Graham Haggart: Sixty-seven.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Sixty-one miles, navigable water nearly the whole way. The whole course of the river is nicely navigable, if I may speak that way. It is a very deep waterway indeed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the hon. minister given us information or can he give us the information, as to whether there are any insuperable engineering difficulties in the way of having the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway build branch lines down that sixty-one miles to the great open water of Georgian bay, instead of committing the people of Canada to a large expenditure to improve the waterway of the French river ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not mean to say that I intend in any way to pledge the government to build a waterway. But I say, without any hesitation, that there are great engineering difficulties. But my hon. friend must not forget one thing-that large boats always seek to penetrate inland as far as they can. That is a law with which everybody is familar.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. minister be good enough to tell us how much nearer he brings navigation to Montreal than at the point where the railways strike the Georgian bay-how much nearer the navigation to Montreal would be than the

points the railways are on the Georgian bay and Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just stated that, between Montreal and North Bay the distance is 364 miles as against 445 miles between Buffalo and New York.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But what is the distance between Parry Sound and Montreal, and Midland and Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: The distance is about the same.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, you do not make much by the change.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) must not forget that Midland is a port reached by the Grand Trunk Railway, and that nearly all the Grand Trunk Railway freight from Midland to-day goes to American ports.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How about Owen Sound ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is a point a great deal further from Montreal, and, moreover, between North Bay and Montreal, the railway goes on a down grade. It is very difficult to-day for the Canadian Pacific Railway to carry grain, indeed almost impossible, because of the location of the railway. Now I ask the House not to lose sight of this fact, that up to this date, in spite of the fact that we have invested one hundred million dollars in the Canadian Pacific Railway, nearly all our Canadian crops are shipped through American ports. That fact cannot be disputed. There is a reason for it, and it is this: The Canadian Pacific Railway is located in such a way that it is too expensive to carry grain by rail from one point to another, in competition with American roads. I will say no more on this point.


Mr. BENNETT.: Before the minister leaves that point, I would like to ask him a question. Boats carrying 200,000 bushels, which would be boats about 450 feet in length, would they go up to North Bay docks and Calander docks, or would they simply go to the west end of Lake Nipissing, and what would be the depth of water to be found in Lake Nipissing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is deep water in the middle of Lake Nipissing. It would be necessary of course, to build accommodation there, as everywhere else. Now, Mr. Speaker, I see the difficulty. Every local interest and every harbour which thinks it might be hurt by that great national highway, rises up and says: Don't make that great improvement, but continue on in the old way, and let American boats take our Canadian trade. That is the whole difficulty in a few words. Well, Sir, we have reached Montreal. A great deal has been said about the port of
Montreal lately. I am very sorry that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is not in his seat. He told us a day or two ago that we are wasting our time in Montreal, especially.


Air. KEMP.: AA'ith the permission of the Afinister of Public Works may I ask him just one question ? It has been stated that the mouth of the French river on the Georgian Bay is sixty miles from North Bay. Alay I inquire from the Minister of Public Works how many miles from the mouth of the French river on the Georgian Bay is the Soo line of the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: I cannot answer that question at the moment. The figures could easily be made out, but I have not got them under my hand.


James Joseph Hughes: May I ask the hon. minister a question ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I canuot allow any more interruptions on questions of detail, but I will be glad to answer any general question. A good deal has beeu said about the port of Montreal. Perhaps too much discussion has taken place, but I could not help it. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier said that we have lost a year in building elevators in Montreal. Now that the attention of the House has been called to that question, I will be glad to take the House into my confidence. I may say at the outset that no time has been lost at all. Last year parliament voted $1,000,000 for the equipment of a port at Montreal and to build elevators and so on. The harbour commissioners who were charged with the disposition of that money, subject of course to the approval of the government, did not ask for tenders before the month of September last. It would have been impossible for any contractor to lay down foundations in Alontreal during the fall. Tenders were asked, but no specifications or plans had been prepared. Mr. Kennedy, the chief engineer of the harbour commissioners, had only prepared what he styled a statement of the requirements, showing in general terms that the harbour commissioners wanted an elevator with a capacity of 1.000,000 bushels. Five tenders were sent in, Every contractor sent in his tender according to his own plan. There was consequently no lowest and no highest tenderer, every one, as I said, tendered on his own plan. Among the tenders sent in was one from Mr. Jamieson. When the plans were presented for my approval I noticed at once that the last sentence of Mr. Kennedy's recommendation of acceptance to the harbour commissioners, mentioned a test of the strength of the whole structure. Now, Mr. Speaker, the plans were subject to my approval. I had been entrusted by this parliament with the duty of carefully expend-


Joseph Israël Tarte: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, we see great industries growing up on Canadian territory. We have the raw material to build the ships ; we have the men to build the ships ; we have the ability to build the ships and why should we not try our hands at it. I feel more Canadian every day that I know my country better.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I repeat that the more I know my country the more I love Canada and the more confidence I have in our future. Is it not a fact that very few Canadians know Canada thoroughly. We have travelled in Germany, in France and in England, but there are many able men even in this parliament who have never paid a visit to the Georgiau Bay.


Mr. COCHRANE.: We have no special cars to travel around in.


Mr. McISAAC.: You have passes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Private ears form a necessary part of the equipment of any minister who wants to work. I would rather travel in an ordinary car any day of my life than travel in the modest private car I have and which does not cost anything to this country of ours. I repeat that we do not know this country as we should. If members of parliament, if members of the press, if our manufacturers and business men knew Canada better they would do more to develop it. We have the resources and I say we have the money. We have plenty of it, and we are having more and more every day since this country has been governed as it is at present. I do not know what the feeling of the House is, but I feel confident that on both sides there is a unanimity of opinion that the time has come when we must face the music. Our American neighbours are making very great efforts indeed to capture the trade of this continent. They have formed wonderful combines in railways and in industries in general. They are forming combines on the high seas, and if we in Canada do not move on and improve our waterways and our railways, we will be simply licked out of our boots. When trade has

taken certain channels it is very difficult indeed to divert it from those channels and it should be our aim to keep all the trade we have and seek for more.
My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) has alluded to the coining visit of the Prime Minister to England, and he has expressed the hope that lie will be informed of the object of that visit. Well, I think we know all about it. The Prime Minister has been invited to the Coronation of the King. I am not too strong an Imperialist. I am a loyal citizen but I do not desire any change in the condition of this country. We are a very happy people, I think. We have only to agree between ourselves, French Canadians, English Canadians and Irish Canadians to get along very nicely. We are happy as we are and I think there are not many people who believe that the Prime Minister and his colleagues who will go with him to England will change the constitution of this country. We will remain as we are, happy to form part of the British empire and a great empire it is. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) has expressed the opinion of the French Canadians when he said that we were as strongly against annexation as it is possible to be. The French Canadians are not so foolisli as not to understand that they are better off to-day than they would be in that great American Republic, and what I say of the French Canadians applies to the English Canadians. We are better off as we are ; let us stay as we are. We know where we are now, but we do not know where we would be on the other side of the line. The Prime Minister will represent this country at the Coronation with the same dignity and honour as on former occasions, and my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) may rest assured that the presence of the right hon. gentleman will not be fraught with any danger to Canada. The government is doing their duty towards themselves and towards the empire in attending the Coronation ceremonies. I, for one, am strongly in favour of the British tie. I do not know what Providence has in store for this young Canadian nation. We are ambitious, but we are better to-day under the protection of the British flag than we would be even if we were independent. I am sure that the House is greatly indebted to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) for having brought up this question and before taking my seat I will ask him again, whether he thinks there will be any good object attained by pressing this motion. His desire has simply been to call the attention of the House to a large and important question. Having done so, I again ask him whether it would not be wise for him to withdraw his motion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I want to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if he will supply the members of the House with paper copies of this map, and


Joseph Israël Tarte: also with tables of the distances, and such information as will be necessary to enable them to give an intelligent and broad discussion of this scheme when it comes before parliament ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that two maps have been prepared under my care. One of them has been distributed already to a certain number of members of the House. To-morrow morning I hope to be able to have another supply of them, and in a day or two we shall have one hundred copies of them on canvas for distribution among the members. The hon. gentleman will find on that map all the tables of distances lie desires to have.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that in the discussion on tlie address the widest possible latitude is allowed to speakers. They can speak on anything, even on subjects, such as transportation and education, which may not be referred to in the address at all; and we had a dissertation on the loyalty of my hon. friend opposite and his friends in lower Canada. It is not my intention to say anything in reference to the address. 1 do not know but that I might be restricted by you, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment which is at present being discussed.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I expected him to state some grievances at present existing in the country which required to be remedied, and to state the remedy he proposed for them. If I understand tlie object of his amendment, it is that in view of the large expenditure which has been incurred in this country from time to time on railway enterprises, some policy should be stated by the government in reference to those railways. I do not know wliat policy they could state. Is it a policy of assumption of the railways, as the hon. member hinted ?-because he remarked that government ownership of railways existed in France and some other countries. If he was prepared for government ownership, then he ought to state the reasons why the railways should be taken out of the hands they are in at present, and placed in the hands of the government. Towards the close of his speech, without stating any particular grievance that he had against the railways at present, or any particular objection to any of our railways passing into the hands of foreign corporations, I understood him to suggest that a commission should be appointed for the "purpose of inquiring into the state of our railways at present and what arrangements ought probably to be made by the government in reference to them ? Now, I may state that the railways of this country are under government control-that the government can legislate in any direction it pleases in reference* to them. The railway system
February 17, 1902
10G
which we have at present in this country is partly a government system; and it any fault is to be found with the railroads or their rates, the charge may be reasonably made against the government of the country that the management of these railways is not what it ought to be. I am aware that under the contract we have made with the Canadian Pacific Railway that railway is perhaps removed from that category ; but with regard to our railways generally, Canada is in the same position as England. We have provided in the charters which we have granted to some railway companies, notably the Grand Trunk Railway, the means and the amount we have to pay if it should be necessary at any time to assume ownership of them. We can at any time assume them and regulate the rates, or do anything we like with reference to them. The danger seems to be that these roads which have been built for the development of this country may pass under foreign control.


The MINISTER OE TRADE AND COMMERCE (Sir Richard Cartwright).: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? I think he stated just now that in the charter granted to the Grand Trunk Railway Company there was contained power to repurchase.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, it decides the manner in which we can assume the road.


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am rather inclined to think that was abrogated afterwards.


John Graham Haggart: No, it is in the Grand Trunk charter now, and it only follows the English charters.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: But the hon. gentleman will remember that a great many alterations were made in that, and I think that at the time the company issued the subsequent portion of its bonds, that particular provision was abrogated.


John Graham Haggart: At any rate, the British North America Act gives us power at any time to take possession of the road, even if it is not provided in the charter. The danger at the present moment arises from some foreign corporation getting control of a railway in this country and using it, not for the benefit of this country, but for foreign purposes-notably the Canada Atlantic Railway, which is alleged to have been purchased by the New York Central. It is impossible to prevent people in any country from taking stock in an enterprise in any other country. It would be contrary to the policy of this country or of any other country to prevent foreigners taking stock in any enterprises whatever. What we have to do is to maintain control over the corporations themselves, and to see that no corporation which has its initiation
or entity in a foreign country comes in and obtains control over franchises in this country. I tried to guard against that while I was Minister of Railways; and when the present Minister of Railways introduced a bill nominally in the interest of the Grand Trunk Railway, but in reality for the purpose of giving the Vermont Central Railway Company, a foreign corporation virtually owned by the Grand Trunk, but deriving its entity and powers from a foreign country, possession of a railway in this country, I pointed out to him the danger. I pointed out the same danger in the case of a foreign railway company obtaining control of the international bridge near Buffalo. The invariable answer to me was that they come under our Railway Act and under the power we have from time to time to alter our law in reference to railways. We cannot do that where a foreign corporation, perhaps backed up by the government of a foreign country, alleges that we are interfering unnecessarily with the working of the road, or with its earnings, or perhaps sequestrating its property. It could say to us, these people in good faith, under corporate powers, obtained possession of a railway in your country, and you must act in good faith towards that corporation in any legislation you adopt with reference to it.
The giving of corporate powers to foreigners will have the same effect as follows the granting in China or Asia Minor or other countries of concessions to foreigners. It enables these people to appeal to their own government to see that the rights granted to them are respected. But if we only give these franchises to corporations of our own creation, we can legislate regarding these corporations in any direction we like in the interests of the people. I do not see any danger or menace at present in the acquiring by any foreign corporation of any railway in this country, but if the necessity should ever arise, we can always legislate to compel railway companies to carry freight on the same terms for the people of this country as for the people of any other country. We can say to them : If you carry freight from Chicago to the seaboard and use for that purpose railways we have subsidized, you must not discriminate against the products of the people of this country.


William Findlay Maclean: Why do we not do that now ?


John Graham Haggart: Is there any thing shown to-day which renders this necessary ? It is time enough to do this when circumstances arise that require it, when there is a necessity for it. But no such necessity exists to-day.
As the hon. the Minister of Public Works says, a considerable portion of our products are shipped from a foreign country. What

wo require to do is to develop our national resources, utilize the waterways which Providence Ikis given us, and then we need not fear competition from any other country in tlie world.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: And I am glad to see the Minister of Public Works take the stand he does. I intend later on speaking more freely upon this subject; but with reference to the building of this waterway to Lake Nipissing, I understand that the hon. minister intends to go on with this work il' he can persuade his colleagues to support him. He is perhaps only feeling the opinion of the House to-day and he certainly will have my support in this undertaking. I spoke fully upon the subject last session and am fully committed to it. I welcome this suggestion of the hon. minister as the entering wedge of a scheme which I fairly believe will do more for the development of this country than any other I have heard broached during the past twenty years. And I will be glad if the Minister of Public Works has sufficient influence on his colleagues to have that portion from Georgian Bay to North Bay completed of what I call the Georgian Bay canal. When you have it built to Georgian Bay, the rest will soon follow. The interests of the people of this country, the development of our immense resources, will compel, no matter what government is in office, to finish the work from Lake Nipissing down to Montreal. I believe that this is a most magnificent scheme, the initiation of which is proposed by the Minister of Public Works. What the hon. minister proposes is only the initiation of the main scheme. What he proposes is the building of that small portion, sixty-two miles from Georgian Bay to Lake Nipissing. with a lift of sixty-one feet. That ought to cost-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Inside of $5,000,000.


John Graham Haggart: -It will not cost that. It ought to be built for about $3,000,000. And I congratulate the hon. gentleman on ! laving the boldness to state Ids views. I think we might take his speech almost as a ministerial announcement that if the feeling of the House is at all favourable, the hon. minister will have his way aud that portion will be built. I congratulate the hon. minister upon his support of an enterprise which I believe will be of greater benefit to the country than anything else we can at present think of.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, I rose to speak this afternoon Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
as you left the Chair. I rose with the belief that the subject before the House was exhausted, and it was about time this debate was brought to a close, so far as the hon. members on either side in this House were concerned. But, knowing that there are a large number of independent men in the House on both sides, I consider it my duty to speak for them. Hon. members on this side who have discussed the King's speech, complained of the meagerness and smallness of the programme. Of course, when one has nothing to say, and not much time to say it in, you do not expect much from him. I suppose that is why the King thought proper to say so little in his speech. It seems that there is not much to do this session, so we could not expect the government to put forward a very long programme. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his place


William Findlay Maclean: Move the adjournment of the debate.


Jabel Robinson: I am not like the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean)-I have no advice to give the Prime Minister. But I wish to say, that if the bill of fare is very small, possibly there is a reason for it. 1 remember reading a speech made by the Prime Minister at the Industrial exhibition at Toronto. If he is rightly reported, the right lion, gentleman stated that he himself had become a Conservative. I am not exactly certain whether that is so or not. He further said that he did not consider that a great deal of reform is now necessary in this country, the reforms that were necessary having been brought about. If that be so, the present government have accomplished wonders, in five or six years, because when they sat on this side of the House, everything was wrong. I am about as well pleased if the Prime Minister did turn Conservative. I know from experience that, as people grow older they grow more Conservative in their ideas. Some of you Radicals well know that if you had been able to carry out the ideas you had in your youth, dire calamity would have followed. So I can well understand that the Prime Minister could see that, if he had carried out some of his ideas it would have been a sorry thing for Canada. But when' the right hon. gentleman says that there is little more to reform, I take issue with him. I know well that when the members of the government sat on this side of the House, they agitated for reforms that have not been carried out-and, what is more, they have made no attempt to carry them out. Why, according to these hon. gentlemen the Senate was in such terrible state that it needed reforming, if not abolishment. But now we find that some of the men who pronounced the Senate a set of old grannies of no earthly use are breaking their necks, almost, to secure appointment as members

of the Senate. Then, we know that taxation in this country is not what it ought to be. We know that a comparatively poor man, for instance, a farmer or a labouring man with a large family, must buy a considerable quantity of dutiable goods and so may be compelled to contribute more to the revenue than many another man who is a millionaire. Some steps should be taken by this government who profess to be reformers to mend this matter. Aud it seems to me that it would be easy to do it.


Mr. ROSS (Victoria).: How ?


Jabel Robinson: I am satisfied that there is not a gentleman in this House but has been properly brought up; and any gentleman who has been properly brought up will keep quiet till I am through. I do not intend to discuss the amendment before the House, because, if 1 did, I might do as some of those who have discussed it this afternoon have done, even the mover-I might wander all over creation and finish up in the Georgian Bay canal. Referring to the first paragraph of the speech, the government may well be thankful to Providence for the bounties showered upon the country. I suppose the government will hardly claim credit for the great crop in the North-west, if they do, they might as well take the responsibility for the Chinch bug, the Hessian fly and the failure of the pollen of the apple trees to be so distributed as to assure a crop. We are all thankful to Providence, but, so far as the Speech from the Throne is concerned, the government might as well have left that paragraph out. What the government should do is to stimulate every man to industry, for it is the industrious man, the tiller of the soil, the man at the anvil and other toilers who build up a country-not the government. Governments can do but little. Of course, they can make some men rich, as they are doing; and they can make a great many of us poor by over taxation and by not distributing taxation in the proper way. However, I suppose we shall be able to discuss that subject during the Budget debate. The next paragraph is in regard to the visit of the present Prince aud Princess of Wales, then the Duke and Duchess of York. I had the honour to ask the Prime Minister last spring if a programme would be prepared so that we working people might know where to meet our Royal visitors. We met them at different points of the Dominion, and I was proud to see the grand reception accorded them by the people, a reception that will redound to our credit throughout the British Empire, as their visit will assist us in many ways, and not least by helping to build up the country and add to its wealth. The next paragraph tells us of the assassination of
President Lincolu


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Jabel Robinson: Well, we always allow an Irishman to speak twice. Unfortunately for me in this case I am not an Irishman. I have had the pleasure of shaking hands with Mr. McKinley ; perhaps some of you who have had that honour did not confer any credit on Mr. McKinley. However, that was just a slip of the tongue-you all know who I mean. Now there is not a person in the Dominion of Canada who did not deplore that act. I am sure that anything this government could do, anything the people of Canada could do, to prevent anything like that occurring again, they would be only too pleased to do it. I think, perhaps, it will not only be a warning to us but it will be a warning to all civilized people to look more closely after men who are disposed to do such things.
The next paragraph, I see, deals with the census. Now I am sorry there are not some other members of the Cabinet in their seats because I would like to speak about them.
I don't think the country will believe some of the bachelors in the Cabinet when they complain so much that Canada is not more populous than it is. There are some others besides bachelors in the Cabinet and in the House too, who perhaps don't like that very well. At the same time I think one good, first class, home-bred well bred Canadian, is worth half a dozen Doukliobors or Galicians. I think there are people who are not discharging their duty to the country as they should, they are not doing wliat they ought for this Canada of ours. Now that may be a subject some of you do not approve of, but it is the basis of our prosperity ; if not, why do we wail so much at tlie poor showing of our census ?
The next paragraph is in regard to Mr. Marconi. It is not necessary for me to say anything about the great Italian who is about to send messages through the air and talk between Great Britain and Canada without any wires. I think the government was justified in encouraging Mr. Marconi and every other man of talents and abilities to come to Canada. Therefore I think the government is justified in doing their utmost in giving him encouragement.
Tlie next paragraph is in regard to exhibitions. I am sorry tlie Minister of Agriculture is not in his place. But I can talk to him another day. The Minister of Agriculture and I ought to be particular friends, because we are working at the same job. I did not have the pleasure of visiting the Glasgow exhibition, nor the Paris exhibition : but I had the pleasure of going to the Pan-American on two occasions. I was very much pleased with the exhibit Canada made there ; in fact in every department in which this country took part, she did so with credit to herself. I was much pleased with the Canadian exhibit, in fact every exhibit sent from the Dominion was a credit to us. I had the honour of speaking



.[DOT]it that exhibition before 3,000 people, and you may be sure that I held up the Canadian end of Ihe argument, and a number of Americans there who were quite qualified to judge of these matters said they had no idea that Canada could produce any such thing. One gentleman on the grounds told me that he wondered how it was I had come all the way from Canada to the Pan-American, and I told him that I could almost throw a stone from there into our country. He seemed quite surprised. So you see 1 was not the only ignoramus who was there. I told them that I would never suspect 1 had not a Canadian audience before me when I saw the well dressed people and their good behaviour I was pretty sure that I had a Canadian audience before me. But when I told them that in Ontario, in Upper Canada, as it was then, when the first legislature met within 30 miles of where we were standing, the first law that was placed on the statute-book by that legislature was that no man should be permitted to own another man, then I got no cheers there, nor here either. But they did not see the point, and you do not. It took them a hundred years to reach the point that our forefathers reached at Newark. So you see Canada has always been in the vanguard of civilization, of liberty, of freedom and pf justice. Now. Sir, I think that is enough. I could go on and tell you of many other things I said that might redound to my credit at that Pan-American, but I think that is enough.
Next, in regard to the revenue of this country. I am sure that every man on this side of the House and on the other side are only too pleased to learn that this country is prosperous. When the revenue is not raised from the proper sources then we have a right to complain. It is easy enough for this government to raise a revenue if they please, if they put the taxes high enough they can raise a high revenue. But the people of this country should not be taxed to death. The goveimment should be economical in the management of this country, and take the taxes off the people as much as possible. So we need not boast so much about revenue, because it is easy for this government to raise a revenue. If I was Prime Minister of this country and had a large following at my back, if I had a large brute majority behind me, I could do as I pleased. I could get the revenue from whatever source I pleased. What I want is that the revenue shall be derived from the proper source. The next subject dealt with in the Speech from the Throne is the increase of market facilities. I am sure that on both sides of the House we are only too pleased to learn that we have established markets all over the civilized world where Canadian products are used. What we want is an open market. There is one little kingdom that is always ready to grant us an open market for everything we Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).
produce in Canada ; yet some lion, gentleman over here do not appreciate it. If I were asked to give the government advice like my hon. friend for East York (Mr. Maclean) I would give it different advice from that which the hon. gentleman gives it. I should ask the Prime Minister to take 40 per cent off the tariff on English goods instead of the 334 per cent now allowed. I should also ask him to endeavour to have the embargo removed from our cattle. That is about the only embargo that we now have against our exports to Great Britain. I think that the proposition to send fast vessels to Europe and to Great Britain, if carried out, will be of very great assistance to us and I take issue with some of those hon. gentlemen who have argued here today that it would be an injury to Canada to have a fast steamship line runinng to the Cape. I feel confident that the Cape of Good Hope, and in fact the whole of South Africa, will some day be as we are in Canada, under one flag and one government, and when that result is achieved I am sure a great trade will be established between Canada and that country. I hope, in fact, I feel pretty sure, that there is spirit and enterprise and adventure enough in our young Canadian men to seek homes in that sunny clime, and wherever our Canadian boys go they are almost sure to be a credit to us. I think if a large number wept to South Africa it would be well for us. We can raise more boys and import more. Let our young men go to the gold fields and become rich as some of them have already done.
The next subject which I find, and I have to take them up seriatim, is the invitation of the right hon. gentleman to attend the coronation. I would like to be a minister for a while. I had the honour myself of being present at the Queen's jubilee in 1887 and I would like to go to the King's Coronation in 1902. I do not expect I shall be able to have sufficient means to enable me to go. It will be one of the grandest jubilations that ever took place in Great Britain and I am sure that the representative of Canada will do justice to our country. I am sure the right hon. Prime Minister will bring the questions to be discussed at the conference to be held in London before the great men from the colonies in an able manner, and I feel confident that our representative will be no disgrace to Canada. The right lion, gentleman lias represented us upon a former occasion. The Prime Minister was sent to Great Britain in 1897 by this goveln-ment and we all know-since he is not here 1 may say a little more about him than I otherwise would-that his sunny ways won the favour of all parties in England. He was placed in the front rank of the procession and we know that he did great credit to us. I would not care if he had been the biggest Tory under heaven, if he had done as well ns he did. He is a Frenchman and

he showed to the world that he represented 2,000,000 Frenchmen living under the British flag and that they enjoyed that glorious freedom and liberty which is dealt out to all classes of the people, high and low, rich and poor, of whatever nationality, creed or colour, showing that all are welcome in this Dominion and in the British Empire, if they behave themselves. I was pleased to know that the right lion, gentleman was enabled to show to the people of Europe that a statesman of French origin could speak in such terms of that glorious flag which has made the whole world bow in obedience to it. I hope that the Prime Minister, when he goes to England this summer, will be able to speak in similar terms of the flag and the institutions under which we live and hope that the men who go there to back him up will be no disgrace to him or us. We heard a good deal of discussion this afternoon in regard to the railway question, but I do not think it would be proper for me to take part in that discussion because it was irrelevant to the question. I agree with the idea expressed by the hon. member for Dabelle (Mr. Bourassa) that the government should take some steps to bring about an improvement in the management of the railways in Canada. I do not remember exactly the words which were used by the hon. gentleman, but what I would do is this : 1 would advise the government, and I see there is one member of the government present, and he can teil the rest-I would tell the government-


An hon. MEMBER.: There are two.


Jabel Robinson: Beg pardon-two. I would tell them, and I want them to take this matter introduced by the hon. member for Dabelle, into their serious consideration, that they should appoint, at this session, twenty-five of the brainiest men on both sides of this House to meet together in solemn conclave and take up this question of railways, their ownership and management, and consider how railways can be best managed for the good of the people of this country. I would like to have a committee appointed of not less than twenty-five of the best men. They are not all in the cabinet. Now, gentlemen, I am afraid you laugh, but I mean what I say.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson, Elgin) not to forget that he should address the Chair.


Jabel Robinson: I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman is making a mistake in addressing members of the House and not the Chair.


Jabel Robinson: If I have made a mistake, I am quite willing to have it corrected at once. I did not intend to do it. What was the mistake ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is a rule of the House, which says, that an lion, member
addressing the House, should address the Chair and not address the members present.


Jabel Robinson: Well, I have mentioned the word ' Speaker ' half a dozen times to-night. If I have not done it sufficiently, I apologize. Now, I think I have exhausted the subject. I have spoken half an hour and that is as long as I usually speak. I thank the House very much for the courtesy it has extended to me and I hope I will not bore the House much more this session.


William Findlay Maclean: Air. Speaker, just for a few moments I wish to take up the time of the House in discussing the amendment made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and also to ask the attention of the House to the serious condition of affairs that now faces Canada in connection with the question raised by that hon. gentleman. We had, this afternoon, a deliverance from the hon. Alinister of Public Works (Air. Tarte) and what he said to the House I do not quite know. He did not speak for himself; perhaps he spoke for the constraint in which he is at present by reason of his association with the government. I believe that if the Alinister of Public Works could express his own mind he would express a fear of the present situation. I believe he would express a fear of our railways passing into the hands of American corporations, and that he would if he could stir up his colleagues in order to save the situation. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) took occasion this afternoon to bring forward the French river navigation project, and he brought it forward in such a way that he did not. endorse it, nor did he say that the government was committed to it. Why he submitted the scheme to us I cannot quite tell. His argument was, that if our railroads are to be taken over by the Americans. then we have the system of canal navigation to fall back upon.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the canal is not built.


William Findlay Maclean: The canal is not built. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Air. Tarte) did not answer the issue raised by the hon. gentleman from Labelle (Air. Bourassa), but, on the contrary, he evaded it. He gave the House no information, and he is not here to-night to give the House information. In reference to the Canada Atlantic Railway, the minister argued that the railways are no necessary part of the transportation system. He held that our whole dependence was on the canals, and then he launched his French river scheme. 1 was reminded of something that took place in this House last session, and, in all seriousness, I want to direct the attention of the House to that incident. There was a document circulated in this House, addressed to the Prime Alinister and to the Governor in Council, and the sum

115
and substance of it was that the members ot the House of Commons, having in view the solution of the transportation problem, petitioned the Governor in Council, and petitioned the Prime Minister, to commit the credit of Canada for $65,000,000, to be placed in the hands of a private corporation for the construction of the French river and the Ottawa ship canals. I would like that the members of this House who signed this document should stand up here to-night and justify it. And yet when that document was in my hands it was signed by 80 per cent of the members. There was another statement in that document to the effect that the signers would not regard the question as a political one. Well, sir, no member of this House cau commit me to any such statement. No member of this House can commit me to the principle of giving $65,000,000 of the people's money to a private corporation. The administration that gives this money must take the responsibility for doing so, and those who sit opposite the administration are bound to oppose it. I challenge any of the men who signed that document to stand up here and to declare that they have committed me or committed the Conservative party to any such policy as that. I believe that the Minister of Public Works was in league with it. 1 believe he was willing to pledge tile credit of this country to the tune of $65,000,000, to be given to a private corporation which was to own and to control the navigation of the French river and the Ottawa river. I regret to say that three-fourtlis of the members on the other side of the House and three-fourths of the members on this side signed that document, and I call on the Prime Minister now, and I call on the Minister of Public Works, to produce the document and let us know what the meaning of it is.


Albert Edward Kemp: Move for a return.


William Findlay Maclean: I will move later on for the production of that document. The Minister of Public .Works this afternoon relied on that canal project for the solution of the transportation problem, and he has been a party to the circulation of that document in the House. If that be so, what is the significance of his proposition that we should rely on the canals to solve the transportation question. The minister told us that the Canada Atlantic Railway was not an essential part of the transportation system. I call on the members from the maritime provinces to consider that. This government committed itself to the extension of the Intercolonial Railway from Quebec to Montreal, and that was done in view of solving the transportation question. If they were justified, as they claimed, in extending the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal. they were justified in extending that system to the great lakes. They cannot justify their deal with the Grand Trunk Mr. MACLEAN.
Railway if it did not mean to put the Intercolonial Railway in touch with the great lakes and in touch with the traffic of the great west. If the maritime members have confidence in the government railway, if they have confidence in its extension to Montreal, they are the men who should stand up here to-night and urge upon the government the extension of the road to the Georgian Bay.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What did it cost to bring it to Montreal V


William Findlay Maclean: I cannot give the cost at the moment, but I do say that the Intercolonial Railway is only at the beginning of traffic when it stops at Montreal. Its terminus ought to be on the Georgian Bay, and I go further and say that its terminus should be at the Niagara river and the Detroit river.


Mr. COWAN.: What would that cost ?


William Findlay Maclean: No matter what it would cost. If it proves to be the true solution of the transportation problem it will cost little compared with the advantages it will afford. If the government were in earnest, and if they were up to date, they would solve the question. It is not the money you put in the railways that counts; it is the traffic tolls that carry on the railways, and the people pay them. As I said last session, I repeat now : the government can take over the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway on an agreement to pay $1 a year rental and assume the liabilities. There is no great financial proposition involved, because, as I have said, it is the traffic that carries on the railroads, aud not the people who put the capital in them. I do not agree with the Minister of Public Works that our canal system is the sole hope of the country. I say that the railroads are the complements of the canals, and if you are going to solve the transportation problem and are in earnest about it, you must take over the railways as well as the canals. The two go together. In view of the competition in the United States, in view of the acquisitive character of the people of that country, in view of the way in which the railway corporations of the United States fire grabbing our railroads, there is no solution of the problem, there is no hope for a Canadian nationality, unless the people of Canada control the railways as well as the canals. Some gentlemen may say that there is nothing much in this contention, just as the Prime Minister says he is not afraid of the situation. But my opinion, supported by that of a great many experienced men, is that we must own the railways as well as the canals, and that if we are true to our country, we ought to have courage to take both under our control. If we had the courage to do what France and

other nations have 'lone, what would he the result? What would happen to-day if the whole Canadian transportation system was taken over by the state and put into the hands or an administrator like Mr. Hays of the Grand Trunk Railway. In the first place, the whole system would be run at a much less cost, and we would have ten times the efficiency.
Once the state took over all these single track roads, they would be immediately converted into double-track, treble-track or quadruple-track systems. That means a great deal in the organization and efficiency of a railway and in the way of reduction of the cost of maintenance. One man or one body could administer the whole Canadian system of railways at one-half the cost at which it is administered now, with ten times the efficiency and at one-fourth the rates that now prevail. There is no other way of solving this problem. Of course, the plan is to bring forward one navigation scheme or one railroad scheme after another and have them bonused by this House; and we are told that this scheme or that scheme is going to save the country. But not one of them lias done it yet, nor will it be done until the two systems of rail and water communication are bound together, and the Canadian people have the courage to own and control them for themselves. The Prime Minister to-day applauded the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals when he said that Canadians had no grievances against the railways running across Canada to-day. Haven't we ? Where is the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. MacLaren) ? The other day the hon. gentleman, in addressing the dairy interests of Ontario, showed that the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway were charging more for carrying the dairy products of Ontario than they charge for carrying the dairy products of the western states through Canada. There is a grievance. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart), says the government ought to correct it if it is wrong, and the Premier echoed his remark. But they are not doing it, and these railroads which we have subsidized so largely are actually discriminating against Canadians and against Canadian ports. The great Grand Trunk, to which we have given so much money, is building up Portland, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have told us that they will go to Boston if they are not given certain terms. If that is the condition ol' affairs in tills country, it is high time that the Canadian people rose to the situation and took over these railroads and administered them in the interest of Canada. Mr. Speaker, it must come to that, and I thought the lion. Minister of Public Works, when he spoke this afternoon, would go in that direction; but he chose simply to bring forward another scheme entailing a great
expenditure of some $05,000,000, as a means of saving the country in regard to transportation.
Now, I am here to protest against any more expenditure on behalf of private corporations in connection with the transportation problem, and I want some member of the government this evening to answer me in regard to the proposal to commit the credit of this country to the expenditure of $05,000,000 to enable a private corporation to take over the Ottawa and Georgian Bay Ship canal project. The question must be answered. When I saw that document at the close of last session I tried to get an answer. I was too late then ; but we must have the answer now when the Minister of Public Works comes forward and tells us that the salvation of the country lies in this proposition-and I believe that he is in league witli a private corporation to take over that proposition.
This Canada Atlantic Railway, of which we have heard so much to-night, would have been a first-class investment for this country to have taken over and made a portion of the Intercolonial. The Prime Minister says that it could not be done; the Minister of Public Works says that it could not be done. Why could it not be done V If they could take over certain little railways in the province of Quebec and bind them together and make them a portion of the Intercolonial, why could they not take over the Canada Atlantic ? I believe they did desire to take it over, but they were too late. If it were taken over and made a part of the Intercolonial system, you would have a continuous system from the great lakes to the seaboard, owned and controlled by the Canadian people, and it would be a constant check on the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. If you had the Intercolonial extended to the Georgian Bay, which could be done at a cost of $10,000,000, on which 3 per cent amounts to only $300,000 a year, what would happen ? You would have the eastern end of a transcontinental system which would be competitive with the Canadian Pacific Railway. You would be in touch with Port Arthur, from which point you would meet the Mann & Mackenzie system opening to the west; and there is a great canal sytem projected from Port Arthur to the west which may be opened one of these days. Therefore it would be good national policy for the government to have taken over the Canada Atlantic Railway.
So I make the charge to-night that the Minister of Public Works, in bringing forward the scheme which he has proposed for the salvation of the country, is bringing forward the scheme of a private corporation, and not the scheme of the country. I also make the charge that if the government were honest in extending the Intercolonial from Quebec to Montreal,

they were in duty bound to extend it from Montreal to the Georgian Bay; because, I say it in all seriousness, there is no solution of the transportation problem but public ownership of the canals and public ownership of the railways, and putting an end to this giving of the credit of the country in order to grant immense bonuses to private corporations. There is no other way out. It is all very fine to bring forward the old ideas of the last century to settle these new questions of the twentieth century. They will not do. There are a new class of men and great new forces in the world to-day. Men are quicker, men are greater, public questions are wider, and they must be approached on new lines and by new methods. Do you know what is at the bottom of that Georgian Bay Ship Canal proposition? Let me tell you. The greatest water powers in Canada which have not passed into the hands of private corporations are, along the line of the French river and the Ottawa ' river, and the scheme is to bag all these water powers in connection with this canal proposition. It is nothing but a great exploitation scheme that might figure very largely in the next general election. I had almost expected that it would figure in the Ontario elections about to come off. For my part I take this occasion to repudiate that document, which I had in my hand,'in my place, near the close of last session, and which, I believe has been presented to the Governor General in Council and the Prime Minister. And I ask the Minister of Public Works now whether, after the speech he made this afternoon, he will bring that document down, alleged to have been signed by members of this House, and explain lxow he can make the proposition he did in favour of the government constructing the French River canal if three-fourths of his supporters and a great many members on this side are committed to a proposition to give the credit of this country to the raising of $65,000,000 by a private corporation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have heard the suggestion made by my hon. colleague the Minister of Public Works to my hon. friend from Labelle regarding the withdrawal of his amendment, and I would ask my hon. friend whether he desires now to press the amendment or whether he will withdraw it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: As I have already said, I have not brought this up as a motion <Jf want of confidence or with the view of asking the government to commit itself to any policy whatever. But I consider the matter one of great importance, to which the attention of the government ought to be at once directed, in order that they may take occasion to study the question and come to a conclusion as soon as possible. If the government would announce its readiness to give the question its most serious considera-


William Findlay Maclean: tion and come to a decision before the session is over, I am ready to withdraw the motion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think I can relieve my hon. friend's mind with regard to our studying the question, for I do believe that the government have already given it serious study and consideration. Whatever difference there may be between the hon. gentleman and others regarding the motion lie has presented, we all recognize that the transportation problem is a matter of the geatest importance to Canada. The difficulty with the hon. gentleman's motion is that it does not lead to anything in particular. It merely asserts that this is an important question, and if this were stated in any other form, we could all sympathize with the hon. gentleman and agree in the statement. However, he will have ample opportunity to bring up the question again, and he will lose nothing whatever by allowing it to rest for the present and withdrawing his motion. I can assure him that there is no disposition on the part of the government to do otherwise than assist in bringing the question before the House in an intelligible and useful form and in coming to a conclusion most satisfactory to the general interests of the country.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: After the explanation of the hon. minister, I am quite ready to withdraw the motion with the consent of the seconder.
Amendment (Mr. Bourassa) withdrawn, and motion (Mr. Campbell) agreed to.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved :: That the said Address be engrossed and be presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the hon. the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved :: That this House will, to-morrow, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['That this House will, to-morrow, resolve Itself into a committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved :: That this House will, to-morrow, resolve Itself into a committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.

Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :-
[Stage Direction]
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending June 30, 1903, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, February 17, 1902.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the message of His Excellency and the estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Public Accounts for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1901.-Hon. Mr. Fielding.
The Report of the Post Office Department for the year ending June 30th, 1901-Hon. Mr. Mulock.
The Report of the Department of Public Works for the year ending June 30th, 1901.- Hon. Mr. Tarte.
The Report of the Department of Justice for the year ending June 30th, 1901.-Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The Report of Department of Labour for year ending June 30th, 1901.-Hon. Mr. Mulock.
The Report of the Department of Inland Revenue for the year ending June 30th, 1901.-Hon. Mr. Fielding for Hon. Mr. Bernier.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 9.05 p.m. *
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 18, 1902.