1903-08-31

[Stage Direction]
Moose of Commons Mebales

[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 31, 1903.


Mr. SPROULE asked :: 1.	Who has the contract for supplying the Kingston Penitentiary with groceries and provisions ?
2.	Were tenders asked for ?
3.	And if so, what are the names of the parties who tendered ?
4.	And was the lowest tender accepted ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: 1.	Groceries, staples, J. Crawford; groceries, sundries, J. Gilbert.
2.	Yies.
3.	Groceries, staples-H. P. Eckardt & Co., J. Gilbert, J. Redden & Co., A. Maclean, R. J. Carson and J. Crawford. Groceries, sundries1-Hudon & Orsali, R. J. Carson, J. Crawford, J. Redden & Co., H. P. Eckardt, A. Maclean, J. Gilbert.
4.	Yes.



SPEECH OP HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL.

Mr. BOURASSA asked :: Did His Excellency the Governor General express the opinion of his advisers, or did he speak on his own personal responsibility, when he addressed the banquet of the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire, at Montreal, on the 20th of this month, and especially when he uttered these words :
' Now, gentlemen, in looking forward to this great coming discussion, there is one point which must appeal pre-eminently to a gathering such as this-the future relations between the motherland and her dependencies-the possibility, and in an imperial sense, the necessity, I say it most strongly, for closer commercial relations in respect to an interchange of trade in preferential conditions between the old country and her possessions beyond the seas- a problem surrounded by difficulties, domestic, imperial and foreign, but on the solution of which I firmly believe the future of our empire depends.
' I have already said we have a great problem before us, the solution of which must depend largely on the researches of experts, and on such well thought out opinions as the delegates of such a congress as is assembled here can give to the public.
*	I hope possibly that their discussions may not only have tended to suggest a commercial basis upon which the unity of the empire may rest, but may have impressed upon the public the necessity for some system of common defence to insure its safety from attack.
*	No one who has watched the history of the Uuited Kingdom and its possesions for the last few' years, can have failed to note the growth of a great imperial idea, the wish for a closer union between the old country and her dependencies for sentimental reasons, for the sake of trade and prosperity, and for the sake of common defence.
' Gentlemen, it is impossible to foretell the issue of the coming struggle, but in my firm belief we stand very near the parting of the ways. Our opportunity is before us, it may never come again. What is to be our choice- a mighty empire, a brilliant constellation of nations, united in common interests, disseminating throughout the world the spirit of free institutions and liberal ideas; proud of a glorious
10102a

10102b
history, and confident in the promises of its future-or the gradual estrangement of that empire's component parts, and its ultimate disintegration ?
' This is not the time to sit down and fold one's hands. It is time for those who believe in the future of our empire to speak about it.'


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: His Excellency attended | the banquet as a guest of the board of trade of the city of Montreal, and , in answer to the toast to his health, expressed .his own personal views.



DORCHESTER PENITENTIARY.

Mr. INGRAM asked :: 1.	Were tenders received during the current year for the supplying of fuel for Dorchester Penitentiary ?
2.	If so, what are names of the tenderers ?
3.	What were the prices quoted by the respective tenderers ?
4.	Was the lowest or any tender accepted ? If not, why not ?


Tine MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: 1. Yes.
2 and 3:
Per ton.
Screenings. Run of Mine.
Cumberland Railway and
Coal Company	$3 10	$3 85Acadia Coal Company.. Canada Coals and Rail-	3 00	4 00way Company	3 00	3 60Minudie Coal Company...	2 40	3 65Maritime Coal Company	2 35	3 05-4. The lowest tender	was accepted.	
PURCHASE OF BLANKETS, &c.
Mr. BLAIN-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
When was the last lot of blankets, web cloth and half hose purchased ; and what were the quantities and prices, and from whom were they purchased ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The toon, gentleman (Mr. Blain) is not here, and it is impossible to know what department he refers to. If he will be kind tnough to particularize, we will be glad to give the answer.



JUDGES OF PROVINCIAL COURTS.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution
That it is expedient to amend the Act respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts ; and to Mr. BOURASSA.
provide that the salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the North-west Territories shall be $5,000, and of five puisne judges of the said court, each, $4,000 per annum.
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved that the House go into committee to morrow to consider the following proposed resolutions :-
1. Resolved, That the salaries of the Judges
of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Ontario shall be as follows :
Per annum.
The Chief Justice of Ontario	$6,000
Four Justices of Appeal, each	 5,000
The Chief Justice of the King's Bench.. 6,000 Two Judges of the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, each.. 5,000
The Chancellor of Ontario	 6,000
Two Judges of the High Court of Justice Chancery Division, each	 5,000
The Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 6,000 Two Judges of the High Court of Justice, Common Pleas Division, each.. 5,000 The Chief Justice of the Exchequer Division	 6,000
Two Judges of the High Court of Justice, Exchequer Division, each		5,000
2. Resolved, That if the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, the Chancellor of Ontario, the Chief Justice of the Commons Pleas, or the Chief Justice of the Exchequer Division, is appointed to the Court of Appeal, the Governor in Council may direct that he be paid a salary not less than that previously enjoyed by him as such Chief Justice or Chancellor.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :-
That it is expedient to enact as follows :-
1.	The Governor General may,in his discretion from time to time, advance to the government of the North-west Territories any sum required for local improvements in the Northwest Territories, not exceeding in the whole the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
2.	All sums so advanced to the government of the North-west Territories shall be charged in an account to be known as ' The North-west Territories Debt Account,' and shall in any financial arrangement that may be made in connection with the organization of a province
10102c

10102d
or provinces in the said Territories, be taken into consideration as a debt owing by the said Territories to the Dominion of Canada.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are taken up, I wish to direct the attention of the government to an item which reads as follows
Chicago, August 30.-Anthrax, dreaded by cattle owners and fatal in most cases if it obtains a foothold in the human frame, has been reported to the health department as having broken out in a herd of cattle on a stock farm near Palatine, in this country. The department has taken steps to protect the milk supply of Chicago.	i
As there is a pretty extensive trade being done over the Grand Trunk Railway in handling cattle coming eastward from Chicago, it seems to me a matter of importance that this should be attended to at once, as our regulations are such as to make it quite possible for this disease to be imported into Canada. Therefore, if the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture has not been directed to the matter, I take this means of drawing the attention of the government to it, so that he may be advised of it 'as soon as possible.



CANNING INDUSTRY-BRITISH COLUMBIA.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS EARLE (Victoria, B.C.) Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would ask whether any information has been received from the agent of the Fisheries Department in British Columbia in regard to the matter that was brought up on Friday ?
The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not aware that any such information has been received. The question of my hon. friend will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as soon as he comes in.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway, and the motion of Mr. Puttee in amendment thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Boyd.
Mr. A. E. VROOMAN (South Victoria).: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to be as brief as possible in discussing the question that has engaged the attention of the House for the past two or three weeks. My excuse for speaking at all is, the importance of the subject, and representing as I do an important and a highly intelligent constituency, and one that keeps a keen outlook on matters current in the political world, I felt that they might require from me more than a silent vote. I shall not presume, Mr. Speaker, to offer any information on this great question at this stage of the debate.
I shall avoid as far as possible statistics and details, and shall content myself with giving expression to convictions forced upon me in listening to this discussion.
Each session since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, I have heard discussed, and discussed with great ability, the transportation question. In listening to those discussions I learned to realize the importance of this question. I learned that it was one of great magnitude ; that it was a complex question, and one that pressed for an early solution in the interests of this great country. I began to understand somewhat of the disadvantages our freight carriers laboured under. I began to see that we, as Canadians, were not in a position to compete with our neighbours to the south of us for the carrying trade of the west to the eastern sea board ; and all because our great highways of commerce, our waterways and our ports, were not developed and equipped as they should be. Mr. Speaker, I saw how important this question was to the producer of the west ; how that every man, woman and Child in that great country were intensely interested ; how that great country, only yet in the infancy of its development, was destined to become the producer of the great bulk of the foodstuffs for the feeding of this vast empire. Sir, it seemed to me that the solution of the transportation question consisted in so developing our great natural highways of commerce that those products could be placed on the markets of the world at the very lowest cost, in the shortest possible 'time and in the best possible condition. Such, Sir, is the question that has been, and is

now awaiting solution at tlie hands of this government.
Mr. Speaker, when the government concluded to hand this whole question over to a commission of experts, and promised to the House the appointment of such commission, every member of this House and *every man in the country who thinks on these things at all, believed it was'a wise course to pursue. It can easily be understood that members of the cabinet might not be experts on a question of this kind. Even if they were, other duties might prevent them from ffiving that attention to the subject that it deserved. It was therefore a matter of some surprise, Sir, when the government intimated their intention of bringing down a Bill and dealing with the question themselves. So, Sir, we have the Bill and the contract before us.
The right hon. leader of the government, in presenting this Bill to the House, said there was a feeling throughout the country, that was universal in every Canadian heart, that the time had come when Canada must have another transcontinental railway. Well, Sir, I have moved about among Canadians, and I must say that I have not discovered that feeling, nor have I met with any person who suggested such an idea. I thought we had arrived at that period of development in our history when railways would be built according as that occasion required. What I had expected was that this commission wopld have been appointed at once, and when in due time it brought down its report, the government would deal with it in whatever way seemed to them most proper. The government, however, have seen fit to ignore the railway commission completely and undertake to build a transcontinental railway without any previous inquiry into the matter. We who oppose that policy axe declared to be opposed to all railway development. Because we do not see eye to eye with hon. gentlemen opposite .they taunt us with being against the building of any railway. Let me tell hon. gentlemen, opposite that we on this side are as anxious for the development of the country as they are and more so. The history of our party in the past affords abundant proof of that assertion. No party could be more willing that railways should be built whenever aud wherever it can be Mr. VROOMAN.
shown that they are necessary, but we cannot agree with hon. gentlemen opposite as to the necessity of this scheme at all, more particularly because, even if the proposed railway be built, It will not effect the object intended.
I am opposed to this scheme, and I shall attempt to state briefly, a few of the reasons why I intend to vote against it. In the first place, I am opposed to it because it will not answer the purposes for which it is undertaken. It will not cheapen freight rates. In Introducing this Bill, the right hon. the First Minister said :
We consider that it is the duty of all those who sit within these walls by the will of the people, to provide immediate means whereby the products of these new settlers may find an exit to the ocean at the least possible cost.
The solution of the transcontinental problem involves our ability to place upon the markets of the world the products of Canada at the lowest possible cost and in the shortest possible time.
But it is generally admitted that this new railway cannot possibly assist in reducing the rates. Those who support it do not contend that it will have that result. On the contrary they all admit that it will not be able to compete with water rates. There can be no doubt, as has been shown in this debate, that all-rail transportation cannot compete with water-ways or with combined water and rail routes, and I have much pleasure in endorsing the stand in that respect taken by the hon. member for St. Mary's division of Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte, in whose opinions on this question I have confidence, because ever since I have had a seat in this House he seems to have given It a great deal of study and has become possessed of a great deal of valuable Information on it. He gave in his speech the other day some figures, to which I would draw the attention of the House, as proving the point I have just made :
The distance from Chicago to Buffalo by rail is a little over 500 miles, and the distance by lake is 889 miles. In spite of that, the lake vessels are carrying from Chicago to-day about 40 per cent of the flour and 70 per cent of the wheat.
So that these lake vessels carry 70 per cent of the whole of the wheat carried, more than twice as far as it would have to be carried

by the railways. The bon. member for Norfth Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) would lead us to infer that the reason why railways cannot compete with water routes was because they were not sufficiently well constructed, and that if they only had better roadbeds and larger locomotives, the result would be different. But that is not the position which .he took upon the 26th of May, and I am bound to assume that he was honest in the position he then took. Of course, he may have changed his mind, but when we remember that the railways between Chicago and New York are the best equipped systems in the world, it is difficult to account for that sudden change. And if we are going to build a railway through this north country up to Winnipeg which will be equal to the systems between Chicago and New York it will cost, not $28,000 per mile, but $60,000. Bet me further quote a few words from what the hon. member for St. Mary's division said :
In 1902, between Chicago and New York, the rates are as follows :	By lake and canal,
S'll ; by lake and rail, 5(54; and by all-rail 9-88.
Or nearly double by all-rail the rates by water. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the railways from Chicago to New York are perfect in construction, the rates are nearly twice as heavy as the rates by water although the distance is more than double, so that the hon. member for North Norfolk need never expect to build a railway to Winnipeg through that northern country which will carry freight in competition with the water route. The idea is preposterous. Inasmuch as the proposed railway route ignores and will not utilize our waterways, it cannot possibly be the cheapest route and will not alter the present rate of freight. So that after this railway is built and all this money is spent, we will be just where we were before, so far as rates are concerned, our freight carriers will be labouring under just the same disadvantages as now, and the transportation commission will still have the same problem to solve.
I oppose this government scheme again because it has not been shown that the line from Levis to Moncton is a necessity. On Friday evening, when the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. .Tohnston) was speaking, he made us of these words :
As this debate goes on from1 day to-day the policy of the government gains in strength.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how it happens but I have arrived at the very opposite conclusion. It is nothing extraordinary that doctors should differ, but in support of the position I take, let me quote from the Toronto ' Evening News,' which is not unfriendly to the present administration. In fact, its managing director and editor is a great admirer of the Prime Minister, and would not like (o see him come to grief in this great scheme which he lias launched on the country. When this project was first given to the country, the editor of the Toronto ' News' criticised it very favourably. But time passed on and the leader of the opposition put his scheme before the country. This editor has investigated, and has found the comparison so unfavourable to the government's project that he has become concerned for the prestige of his hero, the Premier of this country. He went out and tried to observe the way the wind was blowing, and then he came in and wrote in this strain of the government's policy :
The most doubtful feature of the government's transcontinental railway policy is the projected extension of the air-line from Quebec to Moncton. There is no doubt that construction over this route will be costly. It is not at all clear that satisfactory grades can be obtained. It is possible that the new road will hardly excel the Intercolonial in carrying efficiency, and that years will elapse before It develops any considerable local traffic. In the meantime we impair the revenues of the Intercolonial, discredit public ownership, and obtain in return neither local nor national advantages at all commensurate with the expenditure which must be shouldered.
And further down he says :
It seems, therefore, to be clear that the government's policy would be improved, although at some additional cost to the country, if the Moncton extension were abandoned, and the Intercolonial carried to Parry Sound.
Evidently he was coming to adopt the policy of the leader of the opposition. The very next day this editor returned to the consideration of this subject, showing that he is very much concerned about it. And this is what he said ;
Two points stand out clearly on consideration of the transcontinental railway situation. The

done, and will solve it for all time to come at a cost not more than half that which the scheme of the government will cost. It is a scheme that will utilize instead of rendering useless-as the government scheme will do-the Intercolonial that has cost this country so much ; it is a scheme that will utilize our valuable waterways, thus reducing freight rates to their lowest point ; it is a scheme that will introduce four trunk lines of railway into 'Winnipeg' and the west, and thus prevent congestion and blockade ; it is a scheme of which it can be said that every dollar put into it represents a dollar's worth of assets to this country, it is a scheme that will be a paying one from the start; it is a scheme that will bear investigation : the more you examine it the better it appears. Sir, I congratulate the leader of the opposition upon the completeness of his policy. It seems to me that by it all the conditions of this intricate problem are fully met. I oppose the government scheme because, while it will not solve the most pressing question of the day, it will, by its immense cost to the country, hamper, retard and prevent development in other directions for years to come. I hope, sir, that the government will change their mind and will withdraw this Bill and this contract, and reintroduce one upon the lines laid down by the leader of the opposition. If they cannot do that, then, before taking a vote on it in this House, they should go to the country and give the people an opportunity to speak, and it is there that we on this side of the House can safely rest our case.


Mr. THOMAS MURRAY (Pontiac).: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not intend to occupy the time of the House at any great length, because this subject has already been discussed very fully, and everything that can be said upon it on either side of the House, has been said. Strong arguments have been advanced on both sides of the House, long exhaustive speeches have been made upon the question, but naturally I feel interested in this very important question as my constituents are deeply interested in the question of transportation because they have been rather unfavourably situated in the past in that respect. I represent perhaps one of the largest counties in the province of Quebec, the county of Pontiac, which commences at Quyon and extends up to the height of land, and if there is one country in the Dominion of Canada that labours under a disadvantage on account of lack of transportation ..facilities it is the county of Pontiac. My constituents a long time ago gave a large amount by way of subsidy to the Pontiac Pacific Junction Railway, but up to the present time that road is only extended up as far as Waltham. In the upper portion of my constituency they have no railway facilities at all. Of course they have a branch railway from Mattawa in Ontario to Te-Mr. VROOMAN.
miscamingue and Kippewa in Quebec. Well, Sir, as I have already stated this is a question that my constituents are very much interested in and they naturally expect to hear from me in this debate. The question of economy in transportation is one that should engage the serious attention of every hon. member of this House, no matter whether he be a Conservative or a Liberal. This is a question which should be discussed apart altogether from party politics. The hon. member for Bothweil (Mr. Clancy) is a very plausible speaker. I had the honour of a seat with him in the local legislature and I know that he is an able man and a plausible speaker. I had the pleasure of listening to the arguments which he addressed to the House the other day during which he said that we should discuss these questions upon their merits, but, from his standpoint and from the standpoint of many other hon. members, there did not appear to be any merits at all in the scheme propounded by the government, but that all the merits were in the scheme propounded by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). If I were disposed to take the same objection I might apply it in the opposite way and say that there were no merits in the scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. But, as I have already pointed out, we ought to look upon this as a question above party politics. I do not believe that I shall ever appeal to the electorate to send me back again to this House.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Murray) going to the Senate ?


Thomas Murray: I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) that I would not take a seat in the Senate. I believe I could have got there before now if I had desired to do so but I would not take a seat in the Senate because I do not believe in the institution. I can tell the hon. gentleman another thing, and that is, if I were offered a seat in the cabinet to-day I would not take it. I do not say that I am worthy of that high honour. I do not say that I have the ability to occupy such a high position, but I have made up my mind to retire from the political arena, and, if I may say so, to go into obscurity as far as politics are concerned. But, I feel it to be my duty while I am a representative of the people, and while I represent the county of Pontiac, to raise my humble voice in matters of this kind. I do not want to go into figures or facts, but when we consider both of these propositions upon their merits I fail to see where the opposition have made out a case. 1 will admit that the scheme which the government has propounded is quite new to myself and that it is quite new to the people, but this is a time for the people of Canada to go forward in the march of progress. I am not a lawyer or a doctor-I have not the

advantage of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Vrooman) and who has delivered such a painstaking address, but i am a practical business man and viewed in the light of my experience as a business man I would ask this House in the first place where would Ontario be today if it were not for the Grand Trunk Railway, and where would Canada be today if it were not for the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have heard hon. gentlemen on this side of the House complaining of the exorbitant charges that were made in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, but notwithstanding that I say the national side of our country has been greatly advanced by the construction of that railway. Where would the North-west Territories be to-day, what would be the state of our iron mines along Lake Superior, of our nickel, silver, and gold mines if it were not for the Canadian Pacific Railway V In the light of our experience with that great transcontinental railway I think we can view with favour this proposition which is designed to open up a part of Canada which is comparatively valueless at the preseut time because of the lack of transportation facilities. Perhaps we have not all the information we would like to have in regard to that country but this scheme will help along the march of progress and I think Lhe country will be of the opinion that the government have not grappled with the question an hour too soon. It may be considered by some people that this proposition has not been matured, but when it is remembered that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which is a strong financial corporation, believe that it is going to be a paying enterprise, I think the government are justified in saying : Well, if you consider it a wise proposition we are prepared to meet you. The government did meet the Grand Trunk Pacific and they have made what they considered to be a good bargain. People may calculate and say it is going to cost a great deal more money than the sum which has been stated but that is only a surmise. I contend that the government have made an excellent bargain with the Grand Trunk Pacific. They are going to ouild a railway from Moncton right through to the Pacific coast and they are going to open up new country. We do not know any thing at all about the hidden wealth of that country, but we know there is good land adjacent to a great portion of the route to be traversed. I know that in the upper end of my county there is an immense quantity of land available for settlement waiting for railway facilities. We little know the riches that we possess. We little knew what we possessed along the Canadian Pacific Railway and we little know what we possess in this northern country to be opened up by this new railway. Providence intended that country for some purpose. When I first went to Pembroke 317
some forty years ago the surrounding country was looked upon as being comparatively valueless, but it is now, I may say, the garden of Ontario. I know what I am talking about when I say what has happened there is going to happen all along the line.
I do not undertake, to say that this new railway is going to cheapen the cost of taking wheat from the North-west Territories to the sea-board, but it will give us a new line of communication between the east and the west and it will develop sufficient local traffic to make it self sustaining. The Grand Trunk Pacific people think so themselves. In that view I am strongly in favour of the project that the government have propounded to the House. It is true that a member of the government, the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), did not see the question exactly as his former colleagues have seen it. He took issue with them. He is very much interested in the Intercolonial Railway. Ho has adopted certain views and those views he has carried to the extent of resigning from the cabinet.
I do not find any fault with him for that, he lias a perfect right to carry out his convictions and I do not pretend to criticise him. 1 have had the very highest opinion of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals.
I believe he was honest in his convictions, when, because he could not fall in with the views of his colleagues, he withdrew from the government. He has a perfect right to do that. That is his privilege. As far as the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is concerned, he spoke largely the other evening about developing the great water-ways of the country. I am to favour of that myself. I do not want to take up the time of the House by going into that feature of the question at any considerable length. I introduced a motion in the early part of the session in connection with the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal. 1 want all the railways we can get in Canada, if we want to make this country what it is destined to be, if we want to populate the country, if we want to see our resources developed, we have to encourage all these enterprises. We should not be afraid of the cost. Suppose that it does cost $100,000,000 or $150,000,000, what is that compared with the revenue this great country will derive from the outlay ? Some hon. gentlemen talk about cheap freights. I say that what we want are people. Give us population; give us plenty of people. This new line will have passenger traffic as well as freight traffic. We do not know what the character of the scenery in that country may be. We do not know what amount of tourist traffic there will be, but if this line is built it will attract a great many travellers and it will also attract settlers by which the country will be peopled. I do contend Sir that if there is one thing more than another which should engage the attention of parliament it is the improvements of our water-ways. That



country which would enlarge its water-ways and develop them to the greatest extent so as to secure economy in transportation which tends to the prosperity of the country will have done for its citizens, its producers and its consumers alike the greatest possible good. I say then that this Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal, which is an old scheme, should have received more serious consideration at the hands of the government of the day and the parliament of this country.
What did Sir John Macdonald say in his time when I brought up my motion in that connection. He said :
The Ottawa ship canal and the Pacific Railway must be constructed. No voice will be raised against the great national work which will open up the western states and colonies to the seaboard.
He put that scheme hand in hand with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Then, Sir, we come to Mr. Alexander Mackenzie and what did he say :
I am perfectly satisfied that the Ottawa valley presents the greatest facilities of any route upon the continent for the transportation of the products of the North-west to the Atlantic ocean.
These men were sound in their views. They looked at the situation as statesmen, not from a sectional, a selfish, or a party standpoint. They looked at it in a national spirit, and that is the way that such questions should be viewed. Any member in this house who, looking at that great stretch of inland water navigation that nature has placed there for man to develop, and considering the difficulty that now exists in moving the bulky products, the cereals of the North-west to the seaboard, says that this Georgian Bay canal should not be constructed does not understand the situation. If we had a 20-foot water-way vessels could be employed of 18-0 feet draught, and carrying some 8,000 tons of freight from Bake Superior to the seaboard at a dollar a ton, or $8,000 a cargo, so that we would have a rate of three cents a bushel on wheat. Is there any other stretch of water navigation or railway line that can compete with that ? No, Sir, there is not and cannot be. Nature has done almost everything for us and it is left for us to do the rest.
Then, Sir, let us consider the value of the water-powers along that river. You talk about protection stimulating manufactures. Why, Sir, these water-powers will be the greatest stimulants to the manufacturing industries that we could have. Two hundred and fifty thousand horsepower can be developed on that line. See what that will mean, think of the pulp mills and grist mills that will be erected between here and Mattawa. We can have all kinds of machinery run by electricity. That is what the effect of this construction will be. Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but I am talking common sense, I am talking facts. I am for business every time. I am


Thomas Murray: not a lawyer, I do not study up what I am going to say. I say it from my heart, I am sincere and I believe that if there is one matter more than another which should receive the attention of Canada it is this very important question of Improving the water-ways. This will not be a canal ; it will be a series of stretches of river navigation. Book how the ships will be sheltered, no danger, no risk at all, they will be sheltered from the winds and the storms to which they would be exposed on the 'great lakes. Then, looking at it from a military standpoint, we will have a system of inland navigation which will be of great value in connection with a system of national defence and a great protection to our shipping. From every standpoint I say the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal should be constructed, and I appeal to hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House to take up this matter. In 1898 a report of a Senate Committee was published on this project. That is one thing for which I give the Senate credit- I do not give them credit for much, because I consider the Senate a useless piece of government machinery-but I do give them credit for giving that question some attention. I asked for a copy of that report, and not being able to get one, I addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Printing Committee, asking him to have a number printed for further circulation. In the course of his address the other day my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) made reference to this question. He made a personal inspection of the French river, and was instrumental in having a survey and an approximate estimate of the cost of a canal on that river prepared. He was very enthusiastic on that matter. I accompanied him from Pembroke down the Ottawa to Arnprior, and naturally, at Bryson and other places where he stopped, people were anxious to meet him, and they gathered in large numbers. The hon. gentleman then gave the impression that the construction of the Canal was to go on immediately, that surveys were to be made along the route and the whole project was to be taken up. I am sorry to say that the other evening when he spoke lie did not go quite as warmly into the subject, although he was very much in favour of improving our water-ways. He referred to the St. Rawrence. He strongly favoured spending money along the St. Bawrence, and at Montreal. I did not like the ring of his speech when I compared it with the enthusiastic manner in which he spoke to my constituents when I accompanied him through Pontiac.
I am satisfied that the. hon. leader of the government, although he has not pronounced himself as strongly as did some former premiers of this country. Sir John Macdonald and Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, has foresight enough and has statesmanship enough to see the necessity of going

on with this project. All I hope, Mr. Speaker, is that in considering- 'this railway which is about to be built-and I am satisfied that it will be carried in this House, I am satisfied that if the leader of the government and the leader of the *opposition should both explain to the House their different policies and the vote .should be taken then and there that would be the result- all I hope is that this Georgian Bay canal project will not be lost sight of. I trust that if this railway is constructed parliament, ratifying the agreement and the country approving of it, its construction will not retard the building of the Georgian Bay canal.
Now, Sir, I do. not know that it is necessary that I should take up the time of the House at greater length.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman has not touched the railway scheme yet.


Thomas Murray: I think I have. I have said that 1 think it is a national necessity and that we cannot move too fast. X endorse the sentiments of my leader ; I say it is the. time for action, not the time for delay, that we should not delay in order to hear what that section of the country is like. We know that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway people, as business men, are giving the project due consideration and are undertaking it as a business enterprise. The government lias met them and met them in a businesslike way. I do not want to talk at as great length as my bon. friend who has just interrupted me (Mr. Sproule). I could talk all day on the railway project and on the absurdity of the proposition of his leader. Why, Sir, this may he a project which is not very much matured, but I consider the jiroject of the leader of the opposition abortive. The idea of utilizing the Intercolonial Railway ! Have we not got tiie Intercolonial Railway already ? The idea of utilizing the Canada Atlantic Railway ! Have we not got that already ? And the idea of utilizing the Lake Superior section of the Canadian Pacific Railway ! The tiling is monstrous and an absurdity and if the leader of the opposition and the hon. gentlemen behind him think that the people of this country are going to support such a proposition they are .making a great mistake. If the hon. leader of the opposition had come down and said that, considering the efforts and the surveys made in connection with the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal, considering what the present government has done in making surveys of the French river, no question of transportation should receive precedence over the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, then I would be with him and there would be some sense in that. But there is no sense under the sun that I can see in the proposition that lie has submitted to the House. The lender of the opposition may be a very clever man, I respect him. and I am sure that lie lias the respect of every other mem-317i
ber on this side of the House. So long as he retains the position of leader of the opposition, he is a credit to Canada. I believe hon. gentlemen could not have selected a .better man as leader of the opposition, and I hope the country will keep him there for many years, and I think they will. He has brought forward a duck-and-drake proposition which I as a business man look on ns absurd. What good will it do in the way of opening up the back country ? What we want to-day is a policy for opening up territories which are not yet opened up. We know toy experience that that is a national necessity, and that is the kind of policy I am in favour of. Mr. Speaker, I will not say any more.


Mr. R. A. PRINGLE (Cornwall and Stormont).: Mr. Speaker, we have just been entertained to 'a very forcible speech from the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Murray). He was careful at the opening of his speech to assure us that he was retiring from public life. He was most particular to emphasize that before he made the statement that he supported this scheme of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. His speech certainly had the merit of brevity, and I will endeavour to follow him in that respect. But, Sir, while lie got up to speak in support of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, he devoted his whole time and attention to the Georgian Bay canal. He told us nothing whatever in regard to the merits of the Scheme of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, except that the road was 'to run through a country which was entirely unknown. He said that he himself knew nothing whatever about the wealth of the 'country through which tills line was to go. It was refreshing to hear one hon. gentleman on the other side of the House give the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) Credit for honesty in life convictions. We have heard repeatedly in this debate hon. gentlemen who- have been followers of the exMinister of Railways and Canals, instead of meeting by argument the very 'able arraignment which that hon. gentleman made of this transcontinental railway scheme, meeting it by abuse. We had the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and other lion, members on the other side of the House*,standing up in their places, and, instead of meeting the 'arguments of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, devoting their time to abusing the ex-minister; and I say again tlmt it was refreshing to hear the statement coming from the hon. member for Pontiac that lie considers that Mr. Blair was thoroughly honest in iris convictions.
Now. Mr. Speaker, we all acknowledge that during the past two or three years there has been a discussion in regard to the congestion in the North-west Territories. We on tliis side of the House take no pessimistic view as to the future of this great country. We as a Conservative party have

always been optimistic as to the future of Canada. We acknowledge that the resources of the North-west Territories alone are sufficient for the building up of a nation. We recognize that we have in that great country over 191,000,000 acres of land, equal to the area of Great Britain and France, two of the richest countries in Europe. We recognize that of this vast area only 1,000,000 acres were under crop last, year. So that practically only one acre in every 200 lias come under 'the domain of the plough; only one-half of one per cent of the soil of the territories has yet borne a crop; and yet that comparatively small area last year yielded a very large crop both of wheat and other cereals. I say we have recognized that, and the Conservative party are ready and always have been ready to meet such occasions in the proper spirit and in the proper manner; and when the government announced through the Governor General that ' the whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.' we on this side of the House considered that the government were taking the proper step. When we heard the address of His Excellency the Governor General, we could And no word therein in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.' or any other great transcontinental line. If it had been the intention of the government on March 12 to enter into an enterprise of this sort, to enter into an expenditure which is estimated to cost the country from $100.000.000 to $120,000,000, that should have been foreshadowed in the speech from the Throne. But there is not one word in the speecli from the Throne which could give any hint or idea that the government intended taking up the question of a great transcontinental line.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I intend just for a moment to follow up what occurred from the 12tli day of March. On May 19 tire Privy Council submitted recommendation's to the Governor General for His Excellency's approval. Although these have been quoted before in this debate, I think it is well for me to call attention to one or two points in them :
The minister submits that it may be assumed that grain and other products will naturally seek their markets by the cheapest routes, and therefore the method of attaining the object desired should be to make the Canadian routes cheaper and more convenient than conmeting routes.
The minister further states that the questions to be considered are complicated and involved, including among the objects, to be sought tho transportation of western products from place of production to the markets of the world.
This involves the consideration of their transportation : -
From place of production to Canadian seaports.
From place of production to the western ports of Lake Superior.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: From the western ports of Lake Superior to Canadian seaports.
From Canadian seaports to Europe.
From place of production through Canadian ports on the Pacific.
As it affects the products of the eastern provinces of Canada it invokes their movement
To the seaports.
From the seaports to Europe.
It is obvious that before any satisfactory conclusion can be reached upon these questions a thorough and comprehensive inquiry should be made regarding :-
The conditions of original shipment and the possibilities of improvement in the conditions surrounding such shipments.
The storage requirements of lake, river and ocean ports.
The harbour facilities of the inland lake3, rivers and Atlantic ar.i Pacific ports.
The conditions with regard to the navigation of the St. Lawrence route, and, generally, any improvement, enlargements, or other matters affecting the more economical and satisfactory uses of any Canadian channel of transportation by land or water.
The minister further states that in making such investigation attention should not be confined to routes and facilities which are at present utilized, but, if necessary, new surveys should be made to determine whether any more economical and satisfactory channels of transportation by land or water can he opened up.
The forces operating against the attainment of all Canadian transport, namely :-*
Competition by United States railways ;
Competition by United States vessels from Lake Superior ports ;
Diversion of Canadian products through eastern outlets to Boston, Portland and other United States ports, should be investigated, and the best and most economical methods used by cur competitors should be carefully studied and leported upon.
The minister apprehends that in 'these circumstances it devolves upon the Dominion government to consider and adopt the best possible means of promoting such measures as may enable Canada to control the transportation of its own products, and it is thought that the most efficient method of conducting such an inquiry and obtaining the required information is by means of a commission of competent and experienced experts who may be appointed and authorized under the provisions of chapter 114 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
To that report the Conservative party took no exception. They consider that the government were taking the proper means to solve the transportation problem; but shortly after this address of the 19tli of May, we heard rumours of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme. Application was made to parliament for extension of the Grand Trunk Railway from North Bay west. A Bill to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway subsequently came before this House and the Railway Committee. The Grant! Trunk Pacific Railway had no intention whatever of building from Moncton to Quebec nor of extending from Quebec westward to North Bay. What they required was the right to build from North Bay westward, but for political reasons these other portions of the road were tacked on to the scheme. So late

as July the 11th, the lion the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) sought to keep up the idea that the government . were still considering the reference of the question of the problem of railway transportation to ail expert commission ; but almost immediately afterwards, we heard rumours of the government proposing to build the road from Moncton to Winnipeg and of1 dissensions in the cabinet. On July the 10th Mr. Blair's resignation was tendered, but kept secret. On July 15th his resignation was announced, and on July 30tli the Prime Minister introduced1 the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill and declared that there was no time for deliberation or investigation. What was it that changed the opinion of the members of this government during that short time ? On May the 19th we had this address. On that date, the government were certainly well settled in the view that the whole matter should be referred to this commission on transportation. On July the 11th, the Postmaster General, as I have said, kept up the fiction that the government were still considering the question of referring the transportation problem to an expert commission. They named as chairman, Sir William Van Horne, and I may be permitted just to quote some statements made by that gentleman in connection with this matter. In Toronto, on August the 5th, he was interviewed, and in that interview he said :
The Canadian Pacific Railway, tlie Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or any other all-Canadian route, will never voluntarily carry a carload of wheat fiv the all-railway route around the great lakes to an eastern Canadian port for shipment abroad, for the simple reason that it *will never pay any road to do so. Not will the transportation problems In the west ever be solved by the constvu"tion of an all-Canadian route from coast to coast.
Sir William was, moreover, of opinion that, as far as the development of the west was concerned. there was no need for any other transcontinental line. The idea of a line having t.o be built for strategic purposes he characterized as the result of the bogey which now and again seized upon some minds through an excess of fear of the States.
Have wc not already,' asked Sir William, ' an all-Canadian line from Quebec to Vancouver ? Doesn't It run entirely within Canadian territory ? Pot a line to bn built away up along the north for the Dtirpuse of tapping the west would be altogether futile Very little grain at all comes down from the part of the Dominion through which it was proposed to run that line. The Canadian Pacific Railway may take a carload of wheat out of it now and again. But I state this emphatically that, no all-Canadian line. I care not by whom it is built or run, will voluntarily draw a single carload of wheat east of Port Arthur over Its tracks. We occasionally take one when the traffic by boat is congested, in the winter, when any special need arises. The usual practice, however, is to convey wheat by boat through I.ake Erie canal.'
Before we commit this country to a scheme of such magnitude it is only right that the people of Canada should be given an opportunity to fully consider it. What chance is given them ? The scheme is brought down at the end of the session, it never received any consideration until it came before this House on July the 30th, and if, as is generally reported, we are to go before the people within a few months, what opportunity will the people have to decide on this measure ? The decisiop will have been taken out of their hands, for by that time this parliament will have passed the Bill and bound the country to the construction of this transcontinental line. The ' right lion, the First Minister says that a line of railway from the shores of the Atlantic to the shores of the' Pacific is a national as well as a commercial necessity. One would infer from that statement that such a road does not exist now. But we all know that it does. We all know that we have a road from ocean to ocean on Canadian territory, so that this bogey raised by the right lion, gentleman lias no foundation and we need pay no attention to it. I notice, as the debate goes on, that our friends on the other side are not paying any attention to this bugaboo of the bonding privilege. They see that the whole tiling is utterly ridiculous and that the people look upon it as a most ridiculous argument for the construction of this road. But when did the right lion, gentleman discover that this proposed line is an urgent and immediate necessity ? On March 12th, when this House opened, he had not discovered its pressing necessity. On May 19 when this address, regarding the transportation commission was voted, lie had not discovered it. He seemed only to have become aware of it on July the 30th. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this proposed road is not an urgent and' immediate necessity. I have no) desire, even for a moment, to belittle the great resources of the Dominion.
I have just as much faith in the great resources of this country as any man in this House.
I have no doubt that in the northern part of Quebec there are great elements of wealth. I believe also that in certain sections of the northern part of Ontario there may be great wealth, but we know nothing whatever about it. Would it not have been better to liave tins transportation commission go on and make a thorough investigation of the transportation problems of this country ? Would it not have been better for tlie government to take a little time ; to have an amount of money appropriated for tlie purpose of sending survey parties out to have that country thoroughly explored to the end that we may know exactly what we have in that northern region, before plunging into a scheme of this magnitude. involving a cost to this country as I said before, from $100,900,000 to $120,000,000?

	958
Chicago to Buffalo via lake	 889.
Buffalo to New York via N.Y.C.. ..	440

 1,329
Difference in favour of St. Lawrence route and port of Montreal	 371
Now, Sir, a great many members supporting the government have tried to convince themselves, and have tried to convince this House, that the grain of the west will be carried by rail. We can get no more convincing argument on this question than the commerce that passed through the American and Canadian canals at Sault Ste. Marie, and see what grain comes down through those canals. We find that in 1902 there were 76,730,965 bushels of grain passed through the American and Canadian canals at Sault Ste. Marie, showing, at any rate to my mind, conclusively that the grain of the western (country will follow the water route. But that grain is only a part of the products which pass through those canals. We find that of grain other than wheat there were 27,740,822 bushels, and 8,910,240 barrels of Hour passed through those canals, showing that the water route is able successfully, not only to compete with, but to take away from the railways which are running out of St. Paul and Minneapolis the freight whicji
leaves those cities for the east. Now, we find these distances :
Miles. Miles.
Duluth to Depot Harbour via lake.. 644 Depot Harbour to Montreal via rail. 379

 1,023
Duluth to Buffalo via lake	 997
Buffalo to "New York via N.Y.C.. ..	440


 1,437
Difference in favour of Montreal	 414

- Miles.
Port Arthur to Depot Harbour	 510
Distance to Midland, about	 510
New York to Liverpool	3,105
Montreal to Liverpool	2,821
Difference in our favour	 284
Now, Mr. Speaker, wbat is being done to-day by the Canada Atlantic Railway is certainly evidence that the rail and water route is the cheapest and best route from the west to the east. We find that during last year some 20 million bushels of grain were carried from Depot Harbour to the eastern ports, and the hon. member for Bothwell has suggested that that was largely American grain from Chicago. The Canada Atlantic Railway would have been able to handle five to ten times that quantity if they had had elevator facilities in Montreal for that grain. The distance from Milwaukee, from Chicago, from Duluth, is shorter to Canadian ports, to the port of Montreal, than to the ports of Buffalo and New York. In other words, a bushel of grain can be carried cheaper from those ports to the Georgian Bay ports than it can be carried to the port of Buffalo. All the ports on the Georgian bay -can be made trade centres for grain. If this scheme which the government proposes were feasible, and if the proposed route could carry grain, as they pretend it could, from the west to the east, then it would simply mean the destruction of these Georgian Bay ports, which are now enjoying such a large and profitable trade from the carrying of grain.
Now, Sir, we have two great routes from the west to the east ; the all-water system through our lakes and canals, and the lake and rail system. I am sorry to say that owing to this government not being abreast of the times the all-water system is not doing the work that it should do. In what position is a large vessel leaving Port Arthur -and Duluth and arriving at the eastern end of Lake Erie ? We have no elevators at Port Colborne. They have twenty-two elevators at Buffalo, the most modern and up to date elevators. Vessels of the class that I have mentioned cannot get through the Welland canal, and they have no way of discharging their cargo except by discharging it at Buffalo. If we had modern elevators at Port Colborne we would find that the class of vessel which carries 300,000 or 400,000 bushels of grain would come from Fort William or Port Arthur and unload into these elevators and that the grain would then be carried in a smaller class of vessels from Port Colborne to Montreal and Quebec. But, unfortunately, we have no facilities whatever. With a very moderate expenditure of -money flip 'Welland canal could be so improved that vessels drawing 22 feet of water could pass through that canal. As we all know when they pass through that canal they go to Kingston Mr. PRINGLE.
and discharge their cargo there in elevators and there would then be only a short distance to be traversed betweeu Kingston and Montreal or Quebec. I concede at once that from Kingston down it is a physical impossibility to get the channel of 22 feet in depth. We have done all we can do from Kingston down in giving a channel of 14 feet. I see passing every week the Wol-viu steamers. These steamers are carrying grain from Chicago to Quebec for three cents a. bushel, and some of the gentlemen connected with that company have told me in conversations *which I have had with them that if we had a proper depth in the Welland canal and if we had proper elevator capacity at Port Colborne, grain could be carried for less than they are now carrying it for, in the class of vessels which they have to use to go through the St. Lawrence canals. I have statistics here in regard to the amount of grain that is passing through the St. Lawrence canals, and I am sorry to find that it isl such a small quantity. If the St. Lawrence canals were improved, if we had adequate elevator capacity at Port Colborne ' and the Welland canal enlarged, 1 am satisfied that a very much larger quantity of grain would pass through to Montreal and Quebec.


Mr. KENDALL.: What is the tonnage of the steamers plying between Chicago and Quebec ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I cannot tell the hon. gentleman the exact tonnage.


Samuel Hughes: Upwards of
2,000	tons.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: They carry 00,000 bushels. They draw 13 feet 9 inches of water fully loaded. At this season of the year we have rather high water. They are able at present to go down drawing 13 feet 9 inches, but a little later on they will have to lighten tlitir cargoes very considerably. We get lower water during the later part of August and iu the month of September. We have spent $80,000,000 in building -our system of canals. The distance between Port Colborne and Mbntreal is 3G7 miles, out of which there are 63 miles of canals, the balance being made up of lake and river navigation. If improvements could be made in the Welland canal and if instead of a system of 22 locks there were only half a dozen locks and a depth of 22 feet, this larger class of vessels -might go through to Kingston and discharge their cargoes there.
At one o'clock. House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.
Mi-. PRINGLE. Mr. Speaker. When the House adjourned at one o'clock I was dealing with the shipping of grain along the water routes. I find Mr. Speaker from statistics that last year there were shipped from the -two Canadian Lake Superior ports,

Fort William and Port Arthur, 35,525,793 bushels of grain. Of this total 13,500,054 bushels, or 38 per cent, were shipped to1 Buffalo and Port Huron, the balance, 02 per cent, going to Canadian ports, as follows
Port.	Bushels.
Owen Sound	 1,308,160
Midland	 8,316,972
Depot Harbour	 3,515,760
Point Edward	 192,901
Meaford	 972,684
Goderich	 2,759,484
Kingston	 4,985,176
-Mr. SPROULE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I want to know if it is allowable to conduct the business of the, House of Commons without any Ministers of the Crown or any one to take charge of the House being present 7 I think it is a most unusual thing.


Mr. LOGAN.: Here is one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 am glad to be relieved from a dilemma. I was asking a ruling as to whether we could conduct the business of the House without any member of the government being- present. Perhaps Mr. Deputy Speaker would not care to rule on the spur of the moment, and I do not wish to embarrass him, but I would like to have his ruling on that point at some future time.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Now, in this connection I wish to point out that 38 per cent of this total was shipped to Buffalo and from Buffalo through American channels. If we had at Port Colborne the proper elevator capacity! there is no reason to doubt that that 38 percent would have found its way to the St. Lawrence route to the port of Montreal.
These Canadian ports also attracted a considerable quantity of United States grain from Duluth, the figures being as follows :
Port.	Bushels.
Depot Harbour	 3,591,000
Midland	 1,633,000
Meaford	 1,065,000
Quebec	 574,000
Owen Sound	  102,000
Goderich	  100,000
Kingston	  58,000
Sarnia	  19,000
Total	 7,144,000
In addition there was also handled, 813,000 bushels of flaxseed.
Chicago also shipped extensively to Canadian ports, as follows :	_
Port.	Bushels.
Montreal	 254,000
Depot Harbour	 4,349,000
Sarnia	  2,349,000
Midland	[DOT][DOT]	 3,707,000
Collingwood	 2,366,000
Meaford	 186,000
Goderich	 271,000
Other Canadian ports	 81,000
Total	 13,985,000
Altogether these two United States ports shipped to Canadian ports 21,129,000 bushels of gi^nn, as compared with 13,500,054 bushels shipped from Port Arthur and Fort William to American ports. In other words almost 20 per cent of the grain crop of the United States shipped by water from these two leading American inland ports passed through Canadian territory. The routes chosen are of interest. They were :
Port.
Bushels.
Midland	
Depot Harbour	
Kingston	
Goderich	
Sarnia	
Collingwood	
Meaford	
Owen Sound	
Quebec	
Montreal.. v	
Point Edward	
Other Canadian ports
13,736,972
11,797,760
5,043,176
3,130,484
2.368.000
2.366.000 2,223,684 1,410,180
574.000
254.000 192,904
81,000
Total	 43,171,140
These figures show that 48 per cent of the grain making use of the Canadian lake route is grown in the United States.
Of course all this 43,171,149 bushels was not exported. A considerable portion of the Canadian grown was retained for home consumption. Following It up the grain exports from Canadian ports were :
Port.
Bushels.
Montreal	 19,934,278
St. John	 2,311,872
Quebec	  1,629,360
Total	 23,876,010
What became of the balance of 20,000,000 odd bushels, less home consumption, as well as the twelve million odd bushels of Canadian grain sent Into the United States via Buffalo for export 7 It was exported as follows :
Port.
New York.. Boston.. .. Portland.. . Philadelphia Baltimore..
Bushels.
7,733,993
6,610,512
5,896,078
1,555,938
104,000
Total	 21,900,521
There was, therefore, more Canadian grain exported from United States ports than from Canadian, in fact, nearly as much as was exported from Canadian ports of both American and Canadian. And the Canadian grain is a considerable Item in the traffic of these American ports. Last year it supplied over 21 per cent of the grain exports of New York, 40 per cent of the grain shipments from Boston, and nearly 65 per cent of the Portland shipments. We know that to-day in the state of New York there is an agitation for the expenditure of an enormous amount of money in the improvement of the Erie canal. The reason of that is that the Americans are finding that the producers

in tlie western States are getting tlieir products to the markets of the world very much more cheaply by Canadian ports than by American ports. We find, Sir, that the shipments via Montreal are becoming larger; and that via United States ports they are diminishing owing as I say to the advantage we enjoy in our water and rail route from the west
The Wall Street ' Journal ' examines the grain trade during 1901 and 1902 of tlie six great American trunk lines, and 1 refer to these to show that these great trunk lines, with their almost perfect gradients, are not in a position to compete with the water route which we have in this country. They say, in referring to these six great American trunk lines, the Baltimore and Ohio, the Delaware, Lackawana and Western; the Erie; the Lehigh Valley, the New York Central; and the Pennsylvania, that in 1901 these six railways carried over 12,-
700,000	tons of grain. This comprised 0-94 per cent of their total freight tonnage. In 1902 the same railways carried rather less than 9,000,000 tons of grain, or 5-37 per cent of them total freight tonnage. In some cases the shifting was quite startling. In 1901 no less than 11-5 per cent of the New York Central's tonnage was in grain; in 1902 the proportion had dropped to 7T per cent. The drop in the case of the Lehigh was from 10'8 to 7-5 per cent.
The Wall Street ' Journal ' then says :
The grain tonnage carried by these great trunk lines in 1902 shows a decrease compared with 1901 of 3,761,261 tons, or practically thirty per cent. No statistics are available as yet to indicate how far this falling off has been continued- in 1903, this newspaper continues, 'but we are informed by traffic officials that the diversion of grain traffic from the trunk lines has never been so heavy as at the present time.
The next point of comparison instituted by this journal is in the wheat and corn exports from the various ports. We may first take the case of wheat exports for the seven months ending August 1. The six American Atlantic ports show the following results :
Wheat.
	1903.	1902.
Baltimore		.. .. 1,394,794	4,827,557
Boston			4,047,970


Newport News .. ..: 2,574,733
New York			9,635,741
Philadelphia		.. .. 784,572	4,790,599
Portland			504,874
Totals			26,381,474
The increase in the shipments from Portland was largely owing to the Grand Trunk Railway carrying their wheat from Midland and our other Canadian lake ports through to their port of Portland. The two gulf ports made the following showing :


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Wheat.
.	1903.	1902.Galveston	
7,615,302	1,903,386New Orleans	
6,923,661	6,134,971Total	
14,538,963	8,038,357
Montreal was open for only three of the seven months. From May 1st to August 1st, 1902, Montreal's wheat exports were 8,203,-(555. During the same period in 1903 it rose to 9,597,602 bushels. During the last few months Montreal was the leading wheat shipping port on the continent, temporarily, at least, displacing New York. The fact that Portland is the only American Atlantic port to gain is significant and that is owing to its being the terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway. Montreal has gained rapidly as a corn-shipping port. In the first seven months of 1902 she sent abroad less than 600,000 bushels. In the same period of this year her shipments were nearly 4,000,000 bushels, and the movement is said to be increasing. The commercial columns of the ' News ' a few days ago contained an analysis of the July grain! trade, which fully bears out the contentions of the Wall street 'Journal.' During the month Montreal received 3,879,000 bushels, and exported 2,357,000 ; New York, during July received 1,344,000 bushels, and exported 892,000. Montreal also received 1,570,000 bushels of corn, as against New York's 2,253,000. She stood second to New York in corn receipts, Baltimore coming third with
588,000	bushels. This shows that the lake-and-rail and all-rail routes are making great headway, and are carrying the grain trade of the country.
I was rather struck, Mr. Speaker, in looking at the Year-book for 1902, to see the very large amount of products that are shipped into Canada and from Canada through United States ports. We have in Halifax and St. John grand ocean ports, which are open all the year round. The extension of the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to Parry Sound will afford the long-desired opportunity for utilizing the people's railway, and will assist in building up Canada by providing transportation for the imports and exports of Canada in and through Canada and for the benefit of Canada. Now, Sir, I cannot see just what the reason is for these large shipments to Canada and from Canada through United States ports unless it is that there is a lower rate over the American railways to and from the American ports. If that is the case, we who own and control the Intercolonial Railway will be in a position to give such rates ns will induce the importation and exportation through our Canadian ports.
I find in the Year-book of 1902, on page. 294, the following returns of the value of Canadian imports and exports via United States ports during the fiscal year 1902 :

Imported into Canada from mother-laud and sister colonies through
United States ports	$13,415,052
From foreign countries	 8,898,699
Total	 $22,313,751
Exported to motherland and sister colonies through United States
ports	 44,860,7S5
To foreign countries	 3,332,065
Total	$48,192,850
The full total being $70,5013,601-17 per cent of the whole export anti import business of Canada. As might be expected, motherland and sister colonies contribute by far the largest portion of this aggregate ; in round numbers fifty-eight and one-half millions, viz.: Imports, thirteen and one-half millions ; exports, forty-live millions. These figures are very suggestive. They are certainly suggestive that under a proper policy this enormous amount of $70,500,000, or seventeen per cent of the whole export and import business of Canada, could be carried1 through our Canadian ports. As I said, we have great ports in Halifax and St. John, and there is no reason why, with favourable routes, these imports and exports could not come through our own Canadian ports.
The lion. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in a very able speech, dealt very fully with the water-ways of Canada, and I do not intend to take up any further time on that subject. He threw out Some suggestions, which I have no doubt are very good, and which it would be well for tlie transportation commission to inquire into very carefully. He suggested the improvement of the French river to North Bay. He showed us that from Fort William to Buffalo the distance is 750 miles, and from Fort AVilliam to North Bay the distance is 473 miles, difference in favour of North Bay of 177 miles. The distance from Duluth to Buffalo is 857 miles, and from Duluth to North Bay 575 miles, a distance in favour of North Bay of 282 miles. Tlie distance from Milwaukee to Buffalo is 710 miles, and from Milwaukee to North Bay 403 miles, a difference in favour of North Bay of 253 miles. The distance from Chicago to Buffalo is 733 miles, and from Chicago to North Bay 520 miles, a difference of 213 miles in favour of North Bay. The distance to Midland, another Georgian Bay port, is about the same as 'to North Bay. I understand, from the statements made by tlie lion. ex-Minister of Public Works, that the cost of opening up the French river to North Bay would be in the neighbourhood of $5,000,000. I think the transportation commission could very well deal with this matter, and see if it were not in the interest of Canada that the French river should be opened up to North Bay. thus affording access to two of our great railway systems and giving a very short route for tlie carrying of grain.
The lion. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Siftou) reminded us that a few steps from tlie Canadian frontier the American system of railways is working. 1 do not intend to take up the time of the House in giving the distances from Winnipeg to the different American ports; brat there is no question that if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company virtually get built for them a road through the wheat fields of Manitoba and the North-west, it will be a very simple matter for them to make connection with the American railroads, and 'thus carry, if they so desire, the products of the west through American channels.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that our two seaports of St. John and Halifax will be greatly benefited by the scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. They will be benefited by it to a very much greater extent than they would be by the scheme proposed by the government. The new line as proposed by the government will not cheapen rates on wheat, or any other commodity by a fraction of a cent. I think that that lias been established beyond perad-venture. We have not heard a gentleman on tlie government side who has been able to refute the arguments presented with regal'd to the superiority of a rail and water route. Nobody has attempted to show, and nobody can show, that the rates on the allrail route can be 'Cheaper-. It is out of the question. As I have said, the Wolvin people ore taking freight from Duluth and Chicago to Quebec for less than three cents in the summer, and it is an absolute impossibility for a railway to carry* freight at any s'lcli prices.
I do not propose to deal with the western proposition. This we do know that if there are 80,000.000 acres of land yet unsettled lying between the railways which have now been built in that country, it will be some time before this railway will be required there. This proposition seems to be a very astounding one and one which the government have gone into without any consideration.
I would like just to refer for a moment to the gradients on this new line. We all recognize that the gradients must be as easy as those on the great line to the United States, such as the New York Central and the Wabash. A convenient standard of excellence is considered four-tenths of one per cent, or twenty-one feet to the mile, as a maximum grade. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) told us that it would be necessary, if this road was to be a success, to have the grades on it not more than 4-10 of one per cent. But if it cannot be constructed without heavier grades, what then will be our position ? If the engineers, after making ail possible surveys and research, should come to the conclusion that grades with 4-10 of one per cent cannot be obtained, then the scheme will have to be abandoned, as it would be utterly useless

to build this road if you cannot build a modern railway. To wlmt extent do the government realize this fact ? They know nothing whatever with regard to the grades. They do not know what grades can be obtained between Moncton and Levis and Quebec and Winnipeg. But once this Bill becomes law, if the contract is signed, the country will be bound to construct the section from Winnipeg to Moncton. Should the engineers report, as they may, that one per cent grades are unavoidable, the country will find itself committed to an unprofitable undertaking. It will find itself committed to the building of a line over which twenty ears can be run at a time, instead of trains of sixty or seventy, as are run over the competing American railways. The country will know then that this great scheme of a Canadian all-rail route rivalling the American routes has fallen through, before an embankment has been built or a tire laid, yet the country will be bound to go on with the work. A railway train which runs trains of only twenty cars cannot compete with American railways which run trains of three times that length, and the country will know that its plan of rivalling the American all-rail route with the Canadian all-rail route has failed, and failed before it was being run. Yet it will have to go on with the work. It might build it as cheaply as possible in the hope that it may be of some use as a colonization line, but, as I understand the schemer the government is planning a national outlet and not a cokr nization railway. I would suggest that a clause be inserted in the contract stipulating that the eastern division must be built to a certain standard, and that if the engineers ascertain that, by reason of natural obstacles, such a standard cannot be obtained, the obligation to construct tire eastern division shall lapse.
A good deal has been said in this debate wit!) regard to state ownership of railways. 1 do not intend to deal with this question because in Canada we are in the position of having a state railway which wo must either operate or put to one side.* lint I find that for many years past, there has been an almost general tendency throughout Europe in favour of state ownership of railways and of the state acquiring railways from private corporations, in the work of Clement Edwards on railway nationalization, I find that European governments have succeeded in operating state-owned railways as cheaply as railways are operated by private corporations. In all the leading countries-Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, &c.-the state owns a large portion of the railway system.
A great deal lias been said with reference to the cost of the scheme proposed by the government and that proposed by the leader of the opposition. I do not intend to go into the details, but the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) lias given us figures Mr. PRINGLE.
which will bear close investigation. He puts the total capital expenditure, under the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition, at $00,470,000. That- comprises building from Jacques Cartier Junction to Coteau Junction, acquiring the road or building a new road from Coteau .1 unction to Depot Harbour, then from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, then from Sudbury to Fort William, and also for the betterment of I lie road from Fort William to Sudbury. Also either acquiring or constructing a line from Fort William to Winnipeg. All these would cost $60,470,000, or at the rate of $41,500 per mile oil tlie total distance of 1,457 miles, including 51 miles from Scotia Junction to Depot Harbour.
Apply that average to this government scheme, and you will have the following :
Moncton to Winnipeg, 1875 miles at
$41,500 per mile	$77,812,500
Interest during period .of construction	 3,309,676
Contribution to Quebec bridge.. ..	2,000,000
Total capital expenditure.. $83,122,176 Or a cost per mile of $43,205, Quebec bridge not included :
Interest on cost of construction on eastern section after completion ten yearly payments of $2,493,665.. $24,936,650 Amount of simple interest on payments of interest during ten years 3,366,405 Interest paid in excess of that received from Grand Trunk Pacific Railway by reason of the. government making i yearly payments of	_ _
interest during fifty	years	 935,150
Total interest	$29,238,205
Total cost	$112,360,381
Tlie question is which of these two schemes is preferable-monopoly versus competition, an all-rail route versus a rail and water route, the unknown versus tlie known. It is also a question whether we should destroy our government property, the Intercolonial Railway.
I do not intend to go into any other clauses of tliis Bill at present as we shall have ample opportunity to discuss them when the Bill comes before the committee. But there is just one thing I wish to refer to. Tlie right lion, tlie Prime Minister speaking cn July the 30tli made this statement :
There is another provision which I am sure will be welcomed by my hon. friend for Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle), and it is that the company shall-buy all its supplies in Canada.
I would have been very pleased indeed if a provision bad been inserted in tliis contract. which would bind the company to buy all its supplies in Canada, but instead the government inserted clause 37 which will not have the desired effect. It is certainly not the clause which I proposed, and which the supporters of the government, with some i exceptions, voted down. Tlie clause which

I proposed was very similar up to a certain point but there was this ending :
-having regard to quality and price among other things, and unless the Governor in Council shall approve of the same being procured elsewhere.	_
As the clause stands in the Bill before us, it is perfectly open to the Grand Trunk Pacific to be its own judge as to whether it shall buy supplies manufactured in Canada or not. But, as I said,* I do not intend to take up time at this stage in discussing the clause of the Bill.
The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Murray) said something with regard to the tremendous water-powers ; I am not unmindful of the fact that we in Canada have tremendous water powers ; 1 am not unmindful of the fact that the day is coming when electrical energy will be developed in Canada to a very much greater extent than it is at the present time. I believe that in the northern part of Ontario and Quebec we have immense water-powers and that these water-powers will be utilized to operate electric roads throughout the different sections of this country. I do not wish to take up time in discussing this question, as I know that many members of this House would not be interested in anything I might say on the subject of . electrical development. But, Sir, about the only information we have in regard to this northern country is that it is full of water-powers from one end to the other. We have information, for instance, that the Abitibi river, at a distance of 100 miles from its junction with the Moose, has a width of 400 feet and, in its course, has a number of cascades and rapids each capable of developing from 15,000 to 150,000 horse-power. We know that within a few miles of this city of Ottawa the rivers are capable of developing hundreds of thousands of horse-power. When we consider, in connection with these facts, the fact that electrical science is so advanced that it is now possible to transmit electricity economically a distance of 500 miles, it seems clear that it is worthy of consideration whether tile time has not come when it would be well to assist in the development of electric roads for the benefit of our people. Let me say that we find to-day in the little country of Sweden that they are doing away entirely with their steam railroads. They find that they have available in that country tiie energy of waterfalls capable of developing from 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 horsepower. They are doing away entirely with steam railroads and operating their roads by electricity. This is borne out by a statement in the ' Financial News.' We find the same thing taking place in Norway. But we need not go to Sweden or Norway to find examples of what I am speaking. We need not leave this continent. I can refer you to an article in one of the issues of '.The Electrician' of last year in regard
to high speed electrical inter-urban railways, from which we find that at the present time there is invested in the United States of America $1,600,000,000 in electrical railways, upon which some $7,000,000 is paid yearly in dividends. These roads employ 300,000 people, who are paid $250,000,000 a year. They have 20,000 miles of track, on which
60,000	cars are operated. I need not even go out of Canada for examples. If we go to the province of Quebec we find there the Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevoix Railway, which has increased its traffic so *much that its receipts have advanced from $44,241 the year before last to $73,292 last year. I do not know exactly over what distance they operate, but I believe it is something like 30 miles of track ; axul they handle, not only passengers, but large quantities of freight, and they find it is very much cheaper to operate that system by electricity than to operate it by steam. In the United States we have a system of railways from Hudson to Albany, a distance of forty or fifty miles, which is handling freight and passengers very much more cheaply than they can be bandied by tlie steam railways. In Italy the conditions are such that we have no difficulty in making a comparison between the cost of steam and electricity for the operation of railways.
In that country they are operating electric railways side by side with the steam railways, and they find that tile cost of the electric railways is very much less than the cost of the other. Some may say that this does not apply to the handling of freight ; but I contend that it has been proven already by the electric roads that they can handle freight better and more cheaply than it can be handled by steam railways. We have a road now being built from Niagara Falls to Rochester, a distance of 120 miles, which will be operated by electricity from the falls of Niagara. I refer to the development of electricity, because I believe that the time has come in Canada when encouragement should be given for the encouragement of electric roads for the benefit of our farmers and other -producers. If you go to the state of Massachusetts, you find it covered with a network of electric roads, which are doing great service for the people. You find the same conditions are rapidly being brought about in the state of New York. We must not under-estimate the value of the great water-powers we have in this country. The New England states are the most rocky and barren of all the railway territory of the Union, but, owing to their immense water-powers, they have gone ahead at a very rapid rate and have become the manufacturing centre of the United States. I was very much interested in reading a report of the meeting of the Institute of Civil Engineers, held in Westminster, where one of the most eminent electrical engineers in the world stated that the main line railways, whether

they liked it or not, would be obliged to use electricity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the government are taking a leap In the dark. They have come down at the last moment of this long session with a gigantic scheme, a scheme which will involve this country in an expenditure for the Moncton-Winnipeg line of from $90,000,000 to $100,000,000, this road to be handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific and tied up for a period of fifty years. They should have hesitated before taking that plunge. There should have been more inquiry, more investigation. The government should have been able to come down to this House and tell us something about the country through which this road is to go. Canada is swinging on to success; she is reaching out for the world's trade ; she has come to a period in her national career when a false step will mean much. There must be no false step, such as I believe this scheme would be. The adoption of this proposal now before us will commit this country to an enormous expenditure, and it is a step that once taken cannot very well be retraced. I am opposed teetotally to such a great outlay of public money, to such a large addition to our debt. This scheme provides for no reduction of rates, and will give no reduction of rates. It will be no relief to the people of the west in any way. It will never successfully compete with the lake and rail route. I object to Canada building 1,800 miles of the lean end of the road and handing it over for fifty years to the Grand Trunk Pacific. The road should either be an all-government road or an all-company road. I am in favour of the great scheme propounded by the leader of the opposition ; a scheme which would bring into harmony Canada's great rail and water route ; a scheme which would place no burden on the people of Canada ; a scheme which would have the effect of lowering the rates from east to west and from west to east, bringing into close touch all the industrial centres of the east with the wheat fields of the west ; a scheme which would give the people a railway from the Atlantic to Winnipeg. I say that the matter is safe in the hands of the hon. leader of the opposition, and that he has propounded to this House a scheme which is worthy oif the traditions of the party which initiated and carried through confederation ; which initiated and carried through the Canadian Pacific Railway, and which initiated and perfected a national policy.


Mr.  W. S. MAOLAREN@Huntingdon: I feel like apologizing to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for making a speech at this particular time in a debate which has now been going 'on since the 11th of the present month. I think I am the 75th speaker who has taken part in this debate. This is my third parlia/ment here, and I think the longest previous debate was on the


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: budget in 1901, when 70 members spoke ; but I believe they only consumed 11 days, while we are now at the 15th or 16th day of this debate. So, it seems to me that a person must be guilty of a good deal of hardihood who at this time will attempt to say anything further. There is one satisfaction, however, which I cap promise you, and that is that I shall not take up much time. While the hon. member for Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle) was speaking,
I kept faithful watch of the other side, and I noticed that there were only twelve of liis friends sitting around him at one time, until the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) came in, when he made the baker's dozen. I looked around while he was speaking, and I saw more members on tile government side than there were on the opposition side. As 1 say, it is not my intention to make a very long speech. I do not know that I will succeed in keeping myself within the limit of the time taken by tlie hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), who spoke ten minutes. But I shall endeavour a]t least to keep myself within the bounds of the next shortest speech, that made by Hie hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), who I think spoke twelve minutes. In the way of short speeches we have altogether got ahead of the opposition in this debate ; although I can say in fairness to tlie opposition thaJt we have consumed a little more time on the whole than they have.
With regard to this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, at its inception there were some things about it which I did not like. While I was in attendance at the Railway Committee 1 noticed one thing in reference to granting charters which did not please me, and that was the readiness with which charters are often granted to promoters who profess to be able to build railways, whereas the ordinary person could not see any reason why they should be able, if means were wanted, to carry it on. At tlie inception of this scheme there were a number of men engaged in it who might be promoters or something of thatt kind, just as some other men have been promoters of other schemes. I did not like that feature of it; but that difficulty was removed when the Grand Trunk Railway became closely identified with the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. You will remember that when the matter was brought before the Railway Committee, Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson who was there, was asked if the Grand Trunk was interested in this scheme, and he said that the Grand Trunk would give this scheme their moral support. I was not satisfied with that, because I did not want this business to get into the hands of certain promoters who would build the railway. But that difficulty was removed so far as I was concerned, when I found that the Grand Trunk were so much interested in the scheme. You are all acquainted with the

history of the Grand Trunk as concerns its building of railways through the older provinces. They have built a great many miles of railway, and made many improvements on their lines, and to my mind it is a very important matter that the Grand Trunk Company should take hold of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and becomes so closely identified with it. I think that fact ensures the building of the railway and Its proper operation.
Now there are a few points which have struck me in this debate on which I supposed that the members of the House were agreed. One of these is that there is need of more railway communication between the east and the west of this Dominion. During the past two sessions and the former part of the present session, I do not think there was any member of the House but thought thait there was a necessity for more railway communication of some kind between the east and the west. You remember the pitiable stories we have heard from members of the west about the blockade of wheat and other products out there, not only of the difficulty of getting freight out of that country, but of the equal difficulty of getting it into that country. We heard in the former part of this session about merchants out there who liaid ordered goods from the east, and who were weeks, and weeks, and weeks before they could get those goods which they wanted, and place them upon their shelves to sell to the people. X thought this was something in which people were generally agreed ; hut to my astonishment,' in the early part of this debate, I found that was not the case. Unfortunately, I think, for the opposition side of the House, it was the sixth day of the debate before .the leader of the opposition announced his scheme, and during those five or six days previous, the opposition seemed to be floundering around hardly knowing what course to take. They were all opposed to the scheme of the government. Well. I suppose they would have been opposed to any scheme brought -down by this side of the House. Until the leader of the opposition came down with his scheme, those of our friends opposite who had spoken, tried to make us believe that there was sufficient communication at the present time between the west and the east, that there was no necessity for any further railway building, or anything of that kind. However, after the* loader of the opposition brought in his scheme then they all fell into line. I do not think it is fair on their part to pretend that it is only this side of the House that are under the payty lash, because I think they were whipped into line to follow the opposition leader about as quickly as anything T ever saw in all my experience in this parliament. Previous to the announcement of his scheme, each mnn of them seemed to have a little
scheme of his own, but as soon as their leader brought down his scheme we did not hear them any more speaking at cross purposes, because they all fell into line- which I suppose they should do, because their leader is supposed to give more attention to these matters than they do. Now if they are so willing to follow their leader, I do not see why they should object to those on this side of the House following our leaders-not a single man, but a number of men who are looking after the affairs of this country.
A good deal has been said regarding the route through which this railroad, as a colonization road, is to run. I think we should be all glad to see that fine country in northern Quebec and northern Ontario opened up for settlement, because 1 think the great burden of the evidence that has been placed before us is to the effect that that is a valuable country. I was much pleased to hear the quotations that- were given by an lion, member, I think from one of the ridings of Essex, from the articles in the 'Mail and Empire' blaming the Premier of the province of Ontario because he was not opening'up the northern part of Ontario as quickly as they thought he should, and nobody will doubt the soundness of the ' Mail and Empire ' in the Conservative faith. That hon. gentleman told us of the number of millions of acres lying in this clay belt that we have heard about and that tlie 'Mail' wanted to be opened up. Now the opposition members in this House speak disparagingly of that part of the country and say there is no good land there, that it is all muskegs, that you could shove a pole down fifty feet deep, ior some such distance-I understood one of the members to have made a statement of that kind. I am satisfied that if any unbiased person came into this House and listened to the debates, he would conclude that the burden of the evidence proved that the country through which this road is going to pass is a good country. So I think that as a colonization road we may fairly assume that it is going through a good country, a country that requires to be opened up, a country that is fit for settlement and that will qjdd very much to the wealth of this Dominion.
A good deal of fault has been found, I think in a small way, with the terms of the agreement. I am not a lawyer, but I have seen agreements occasionally, and I think I can see the hand of our Minister of Justice in the way this agreement has been drawn up. I think in a matter of that kind we can trust the Minister of Justice, and I think other lawyers in this House might fairly take it as being well done. I notice all the lawyers in the House defer to the opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice, and they have good reason to do so. The agreement as drawn up, and which is now be-

fore tlie House, is, in the opinion of other lawyers as well as in the opinion of the lion. Minister of Justice a model agreement.
A good deal has been said about the retirement from the government of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr Blair). May be, some unkind things have been said regarding it. I have always had a great deal of admiration for that hon. gentleman. I have admiration for any man who. on a question of principle, will leave the position that the hon. gentleman has left. Hon. gentlemen opposite are always-talking about the magnificent salaries that ministers of the Crown are getting. I do not take any stock in that at all. I think any man \vho is entitled to occupy the position of Prime Minister or of a minister in connection with the government of a country like Canada is entitled to all the salary he gets, and even more, but to an ambitious man like the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals there is something apart from the salary. Any one who occupies the position of a member of the government of this large Dominion and who is in a position to exert an influence in moulding the destinies of the country holds an important position.
1 had, up to" the time the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals made his speech, a great deal of sympathy for him, and if that hon. gentleman had, in a manly and dignified way, maintained the position which he had taken, and' if lie had gone on in that way, I would still have had a great deal of admiration for him. But, after the pettislmess, smallness and temper which that hon. gentleman showed in the speech which he made in this House, I have come to the conclusion that he is not ns large a man as I thought he was. The hon. gentleman who last addressed the House (Mr. Pringle),' I think, will agree with me that we have to judge of a man to a certain extent by the statements he makes. Lawyers will understand that when you have a witness in court and he exaggerates or does not tell the truth in one respect, it is very hard to believe him in another respect. I have been watching closely the statements made by some hon. members of the opposition, and one thing that struck me forcibly was the difference in regard to the opinions that have been expressed in regard to the cost of this road. Generally speaking, hon. members opposite have spoken of it as a hundred million dollars. That is somewhat in advance of the statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who, I think, ought to know as much, if not more, about these things than an ordinary member of the House. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) gradually got it up and up until he got to $150.000.000. I had occasion to go out and meet somebody in No. 10, and when I came back he had it up to $200,000,000. I concluded that X did not want to hear any more of that long and not very interesting speech Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).
of his, because, according to the record, it ranked third in point of length of speeches delivered during this debate, but whether it was of the same depth or not may be a question for debate. The hon. member for East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) afterwards got the cost of this road up to $500,000,000. I thought that was the limit surely, but to my astonishment the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), a director of the Canadian Facific Railway, a great financier, the financial critic of the opposition, got it up to $560,000,000. It struck me that if the opposition cannot come nearer than from $300,000,000 to $500,000,000 in their estimate of the cost, that if they cannot treat this question fairly, the question might fairly be asked what reliance could be put in the other statements that are being made by them. I am not going into the question of rates on wheat, railways vs. water routes, fixing up water routes, building public railways and building pieces of railway. I think. Sir.
I can leave this out, because we are fairly saturated with figures, but unfortunately the figures do not agree. Even hon. members opposite do not agree amongst themselves when they quote figures.
Another objection which has been taken to this proposal is that we are in too big a hurry. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been hounding the government for the last two or three years to bring down some transportation policy. They say that they could not get the wheat out, that this year there are 50,000,000 bushels to be shipped, that next year there will be 100,000.000 bushels, and they ask : What are you doing about it ? You are doing nothing to get the wheat out of that western country, you are leaving it there to rot. Yet when the government brought this proposition down the opposition rejected it. They say : The country does not approve of it. I do not know-. We have over two hundred representative men in this House from the country. I come from an inland agricultural county. We have a paper down there which called upon the farmers in that part of the country to w-rite to their representatives and warn them against voting for this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. The first time I w-ent home I met some of my friends on the street, and they said : ' Why. you home Saturday ?'	' Yes,' I answered. ' why
not ?'	' We thought you would be so busy
reading those letters that you would not have time to come home.' I did not get a single letter excepting one, and this was not from a political friend, or in answer to the appeal of our local paper, but from one of my constituents to whom I had sent a copy of the ' Herald' with the Premier's speech, and a copy of the Grand Trunk Pacific route, because I thought this was the best kind of literature for this man. We are not confined in sending literature of this kind to our own supporters, but we should rather try to enlighten those who are opposed to us.

I got a letter from this man objecting very strongly to the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme and telling me that instead of sending u paper like the ' Herald,' if I wanted to distribute anything I should distribute a copy of the speech of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. Perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite would like to know who the writer was. He was the defeated Conservative candidate at the last local election. That is the only letter I received, and as I ishid before, I come from an inland county where we cannot receive any benefit from this scheme except such as we receive from the prosperity ol the Dominion. X have seen some of our friends down there. They seem to think it is all right. I am prepared to vote for this scheme, and I am prepared to go back to Huntingdon and justify what I have done in regard to it.
Another view regarding this question, and this will close the remarks I have to make, because I promised to be very brief, is this : This House is divided into two parties- the government and the opposition. I think, to put it mildly, that the members on this side of the House are just as intelligent as the members on the other side. I will not claim anything greater than that, but I think the opposition ought to be willing to admit that the representatives of the people on this side of the House are just as intelligent and just as well able to decide what the country needs as the opposition. We have over fifty more than they have, and I think they count for something. We came back in 1896 with a majority to follow our leaders, and with a larger majority in 1900. The country was satisfied with what the government had done up to that time. I do not hear any great clamour from the country, amongst Liberals at any rate, regarding this Grand Trtmk Pacific scheme. Some of the Conservative papers, the * Mail and Empire,' for instance, are not justified in making the statements they do make regarding the country through which this proposed railway will pass, and they would make different statements under different circumstances. I think we should take a broad view of this question. I think our leaders have given thought to this matter. Of course, hon. gentlemen opposite blame the government for only thinking over it for three or four mouths, yet they laud the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) because he brought down his alternative policy after thinking over it for about as many days. I do not know whether they think that measures the capabilities of the hon. leader of the opposition as compared with the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), but we do not think so, no matter what they may think about the matter. I think sufficient thought has been given to it, and I think the country will approve of the scheme which has been introduced by the government. I am prepared to vote for it. There were some people in 318
my own county who thought it probable that I might shirk the vote. I am not built that way. If I am in favour of.any scheme X am willing to support it, not only with my vote, but with my voice. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kind attention. I am sorry there are not more hon. members in the House, but this seems to be the order of things, and I do not blame hon. gentlemen. This debate is really becoming something of a bore, particularly as it has necessarily narrowed down to statements that must be repeated over and over again, until we get rather tired of them. I am in hopes that the debate will soon close, and I have little doubt what the result of the vote in. this House will be, or what the result in the country will be. I believe the members of this House who support the government in connection with this scheme will, when the time comes, be endorsed by their constituents.


Mr. HENRY CARGILL (East Bruce).: Mr. Speaker, I look upon this as the most important question that has come before this House since I have had the honour of occupying a seat in it, and I presume that my constituents will want to know the reasons why I am in favour of, or opposed to this scheme. I do not propose to criticise the project in detail, or to quote figures extensively. I will simply, from a layman's point of view, present a common sense idea of this case. I have followed the course of this Bill closely from the time of the discussion in the Railway Committee, and I shall trace the course of the debate as it appears to me. I observed in the ' Canada Gazette ' about the 15th of December last a notice that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would, at the next session of this' parliament, make application for a charter to build and operate a road from North Bay to some point in the Pacific coast. In due time parliament met, and they appeared before the Railway Committee asking for a charter. When application was made in the Railway Committee for the charter the proposed line started at Quebec in place of at North Bay and it was proposed to run to Port Simpson on the Pacific coast. At a meeting of the Railwmy Committee a member from the maritime provinces, I think the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), suggested that the line should be extended farther east to the city of Moncton. This suggestion was adopted. Then a charter was granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway giving them the right to build a road from the city of Moncton to Port Simpson on the Pacific coast. However, before this took place, there appeared on the scene the promoters of the Trans-Canada Railway, which some years previously had obtained a charter from parliament to construct a road from Quebec north of Lake Abitibi through the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, north of Lake Winui-



BEVISED EDITIQV

[Stage Direction]
1014'8
peg, across tlie prairies and through British Columbia to the Pacific coast. These gentlemen represented at the Railway Committee that they had been at considerable expense in making surveys and locating the railway, and hence the government were face to face with the probability of having to give aid to two railways, namely the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Trans-Canada. This being the case some arrangement was made by which the two charters were merged as X inferred into the proposition submitted to this House. After looking at the route of tills Trans-Canada Railway on the map, and hearing the promoters' description of the resources in tire country adjacent to that railway through the older provinces of Quebec and Ontario and of the development that would be caused by its traversing the prairie provinces, I made a suggestion in the committee that it would be very desirable for the government to undertake the construction of the road, and to own it from Quebec to the Pacific coast. However, when the Prime Minister submited his proposition to the House the route had been changed, and in place of going north of Lake Abitibi and north of Lake Winnipeg and thence on to the west, they had diverted the line and run it to the city of Winnipeg, from which they proposed to take a northwesterly direction by way of Edmonton to the Pacific coast. Not only that, but the proposition laid down was a hybrid scheme; a portion of the road was to be constructed by the government, and the balance by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and the railway was to be aided by a guarantee of its bonds by the government. I have been for some time an advocate of government construction and ownership of railways for several reasons. One reason is that government ownership gives the people and, the government control of rates. In the next place the government, with its enormous assets and resources, are ill a position to construct a road much cheaper TIian any railroad corporation on the American continent. They are in a position to go to the money markets of the world, and to obtain the necessary capital at the rate of three per cent, whereas a railway company seeking the capital necessary to construct the same road would have to pay at least five per cent. A gentleman on whose authority X rely, a prominent financier in this country, made the statement in tills House the other day, that the New York Central had recently arranged for a loan for which they had to pay five per cent interest and one per cent commission for obtaining the loan. The same gentleman represented that the guarantee of the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway by the government of Canada was equivalent to donating to that company one and a half per cent on the capital required to construct the road. This, when computed and a sinking fund created, would at the end of fifty years be equivalent
Henry Cargill: to $92,000,000 of money. On the other hand-it is stated by the government and by their supporters that the government is not by either cash or land subsidies aiding this road. That is one very strong reason why the government should construct and own the road.
I heard the mayor of the city of Toronto, when the Toronto and Hamilton Electric Railway Bill was before the Railway Committee, state that the franchise of the electric tramway in the city of Toronto would this year yield $250,000 of revenue to the city, and that at the end of the lease it would yield a revenue to the city of three-quarters of a million of money. At this day in the history of this country, and looking at what is going on in other countries, we are in a position to benefit by their experience. In other countries electric tramway franchises, electric light franchises, and water and gas franchises, are producing sufficient revenue both to pay the running expenses of these different services and to relieve the citizens of all taxation. This is a lesson worthy of copying. Canada is a young country, just starting on its career. YVe iiave immense resources, equal if not superior to those of any other civilized country on the face of the earth. Our area Is more extensive than that of the United States. We have more resources than the United States. All we lack is that variety of climate which they have; but in every other respect our country is equal if not superior to theirs. Then I say-and I feel satisfied that my opinion is endorsed by a large number of the people of Canada-that the time has arrived when the government of this country, in undertaking to construct a transcontinental railway from an Atlantic port to a Pacific port, should construct that road themselves and own it. Of course, the Intercolonial Railway is'cited as an example of government ownership. Because the Intercolonial has not resulted profitably is no reason why a great transcontinental line should not result profitably. The government propose to hand over the proposed road to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company for fifty years, which in my opinion postpones the probability of government ownership of railroads in this country for that length of time.
The route of the railway should have gone north of Lake Winnipeg. The distance would have been shorter, and the railroad would have opened up and developed a portion of the prairie country which is not at present supplied with railroads. Now, if the construction of this railroad is gone on with immediately, it will take at least six or seven years to complete it; and no sane man in this House would rise in his place and pretend to say that that would afford any immediate relief to the congested trade of the west. We have now in the w.est two railroads, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway. I am

credibly informed that when these railroads are fully equipped with the necessary rolling stock and the locomotive power, they will he able to carry all the products of that country from Winnipeg and west of Winnipeg to Port Arthur without any difficulty, if they are not in a position to do so, a small amount of aid to the Canadian Pacific Railway would enable it to double track its line ; and I have been informed by a railroad expert that a double-tracked railroad would carry six times as much freight as a single track road. That being the case, you can easily understand that there can be no difficulty in the present Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Northern removing all the produce of that western country. I am looking forward to the day, not very far distant in the future, when the Hudson bay will afford an outlet for a very large portion of the produce of the western country. I noticed in the press the other day that an expedition is being fitted out at Halifax, under the auspices of the Dominion government, for the purpose of exploring and investigating, and reporting upon the facilities of Hudson bay for importing and exporting goods to and from our great western country. Should they report favourably, we know that Hudson bay is very convenient to a very large portion of that immense prairie country ; and any person can easily see that that would be the most feasible route by which the farmers of that section of country could export their products to the markets of the world.
It is not necessary for the House to take my evidence alone as to the means that at present exist in Manitoba and the territories for transhipping the products of that country to Port Arthur. We have had published in the press the statements of Premier Rohlin, of Manitoba, in whom I am sure the people of that province have implicit confidence, as lias been shown in the provincial election that has recently taken place. His success in managing railroad matters and in increasing the transportation facilities in the interest of the people of that province, was a large factor in securing him in his present position. He took up the railroad question and carried it to a successful issue in the interests of the province of Manitoba, and be lias received bis reward by being elected for the second time the premier of bis province. Now, what does he say ? Rook at tlie map of Manitoba, and compare that province with the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. The wheat-producing area of the province of Manitoba is perfectly grid-ironed with railways. There is no portion of the older provinces of Ontario and Quebec which is as well supplied with railroads as that portion of the province of Manitoba. Mr. Roblin says that we have in the province of Manitoba the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern, which, when fully equipped with the necessary rolling stock and locomotive I 318J
power, and supplied by the necessary branches, will be able for many years to carry the increased product of that country to Rake Superior. He says that the people of Manitoba do not favour this other transcontinental railway.
The bon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Pringle), gave facts and figures, which be took a great deal of pains to compile and get in proper shape, which would convince any reasonable man that we have now better facilities for the transportation of produce from the west to the east than it is possible to provide by the expenditure of any amount of money in constructing this proposed railway. My hon. friend's figures are incontrovertible. In fact so effective are our present systems, that a great deal of American grain finds its way through Canadian channels to the Atlantic seaboard for export to the old country. My hon. friend went so fully into that question that it is quite unnecessary for me to enlarge on what he has said, or attempt to add any further information to what he lias given. Chicago, Duluth and Fort William ship grain to Buffalo, and also to Georgian Bay ports, and thence by rail to Montreal. If we can ship grain from Chicago, Duluth and Fort William to the Georgian Bay ports, and thence on to the Atlantic seaboard, at a much less rate thain it can he shipped from these ports to New York or Boston, it is evident that our route is better than the American ; and as vessels can make three trips from Fort William to the Georgian Bay ports in the same time that they can make two trips to Buffalo, they are in a position to carry grain at better rates. If the government were to undertake the improvement of our Georgian Bay ports and afford more elevator and warehouse accommodation at Fort William and Port Arthur, our railways could bring the grain to these ports early in the autumn, as soon as the farmers get through threshing, and store It there for shipment. Ret the government assist in increasing our elevator capacity at Midland, Collingwood, Depot Harbour and ,at all these points, and in the'fall of the year, before navigation closes, the grain can he carried across the lakes to these elevators and storehouses on the eastern shores' of the Georgian bay, and thence be carried by rail during the winter months to the sea-hoard. And during these same months, the railways west could continue drawing grain from Winnipeg and other points west, and fill up the storehouse accommodation at Port Arthur and Fort William ready for spring shipment. On this point we have the evidence of a very competent authority, Sir William Van Horne. I do not know that he offers any opposition to the construction of this transcontinental railway ; but he ventures the opinion that it will he Impossible to construct any railway from the east to the west, which will carry out the produce of that

country at as cheap a rate as it can be carried by our present transportation facilities. I am quite sure that lion, members on both sides will endorse the opinion of Sir William Van Horne. He was the gentleman who was first named for the chairmanship of the Transportation Commission, to inquire into and investigate the whole question. If any further evidence were necessary, I could give you the name of another gentleman extensively engaged in the grain and flour business, Mr. Meighen, president of the Lake of the Woods Milling Company. He must have immense bills of freight to pay ; he is freighting wheat and flour over the railways and the lake routes continuously during the whole year. I doubt whether there is any milling company in Canada which handles more of the prairie wheat than the Lake of the Woods Milling Company. Mr. Meighen is a practical business man, who has been engaged in the business many years, and whose opinion is consequently well worthy of consideration. He says it will be impossible to carry the product of the west to the Atlantic sea-board by an all-rail route as cheaply as they are at present carried by rail and water routes. Last year there were 15,000,000 bushels of grain handled at Midland, and a. similar quantity at Depot Harbour. As my hon. friend from Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle) went into that question very fully, I shall not take up the time of the House by discussing it.
But I wish to point out that this country has expended some $70,000,000 on our canal system. If the government intend to expend a sum estimated at $100,000,000 and more for the purpose of establishing a competing route to carry the produce of that western country to the eastern markets or to the Atlantic seaboard, that would be a laudable undertaking, if the freight could he carried over that line at as cheap a rate as it is now being carried by rail and water. But when the best informed men on the transportation question all assure us that that is an impossibility, it certainly must strike any reasonable man as an absurd proposition for the government to go on and expend that amount of money. Instead of doing so, as the trade of that country increases, let the government take about ten per cent of that amount which they propose to invest in the construction of this new road and use it to increase our present transportation facilities by improving our canals, adding to our elevator capacity, and so on. By doing so, they will probably lessen the cost of freight and save a large amount of money to the people of the west. Wheat, I understand, has been carried this season from Fort William to Montreal by the canals for four cents per bushel. I do not know what the rate is all-rail from Fort William to Montreal, but I suppose it would be four times that. A million dollars or thereabouts has been expended in im-


Henry Cargill: proving transportation facilities at Port Colborne. I would advise the government to pause and consider this scheme and consider whether it would not be better to improve our water-ways and harbours, increase our elevator capacity and otherwise add to our facilities, and leave the construction of this road for the next generation to deal with.
Now, it is most desirable to open up and develop a new country. But, from the information I have, I am led to believe that the timber resources of the province of Quebec and Ontario are very limited, as also is the arable land, and these are the only sources from which the government could hope to recoup themselves for the immense expenditure involved in the scheme they have proposed. The prairie country is sufficiently developed by the railroads they have there now. I think that a mistake was made probably in settling up that prairie country. The people kept straying off into distant parts in search of better land than their predecessors had taken up, and thus settlement was made sparse, so that the taxes upon each settler for schools and other municipal purposes were made very heavy. If the people had been obliged to settle more thickly in certain sections it would have been a great advantage to the country. Who would think of acquiring lands for farming purposes in the province of Quebec or Ontario when there is to be found in Manitoba and the territories laud which was decreed by Providence for agricultural purposes ? I remember the first visit I paid to that western country. I went as far as Regina. Dropping off at one town for an hour or two, I secured a team and started out through the prairie country with some friends. I was lost in amazement at that immense area of prairie .land ready for the plough. It struck me that we had come into this country at the wrong end. If we had come in at the west instead of at the east, and had left the provinces of Ontario and Quebec clothed with the timber that the pioneers of this country have chopped down, how much better it would have been ? Men took up land in these eastern provinces and grew old and grayheaded chopping down and burning up timber to clean up the laud, and when they were due to leave this world they had not cleaned up more than one hundred acres to get it into a state of cultivation into which a man can bring an equal amount of land in Manitoba or the Territories in the course of four or five years. The farmers of the county in which I was born and brought up cut, logged-up and burned timber, which if standing, would be worth three or four times as much money as the farms with all the improvements on them. We have destroyed our natural! resources of timber which would have supplied that prairie country for generations to come, and we have land in Manitoba and the Tei-ritories

to afford homesteads for four or five times as many people as we have at the present time in the Dominion of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I object to the government proposition, in the first place, because it is not an all-government road. I have already given my reasons for being an advocate of government construction and ownership of railways, and I need not repeat them. In the next place, I object to tills scheme because no proper surveys have been made. Supposing an ordinary farmer in the county of Bruce intends to put up a house or barn, the first thing he does is to go to a contractor or other expert and have his plans and specifications drawn up. He then ascertains what the building is going to cost him and makes provision accordingly. I do not know of any practical man in this country who has any idea of doing business economically who would go to a contractor and say : ' I want a house of a certain sige ; go ahead and put it up, then send in your bill and I will pay it.' This government claims to be a business government ; they claim to be practical business men ; but I am unable to give them credit for that capacity for business in this undertaking which they claim. Had they been prepared with reports made by expert surveyors as to the obstructions and difficulties they would have to surmount in building this road from the east to the west; had they shown calculations approved by railroad builders of recognized qualification as to the probable cost of constructing the road ; there would have been some basis on which members of this House could reach a conclusion. But we are going it blind ; we have no basis from which to start. We are told, and evidence has been given from reliable sources to establish it, that it is impossible to build a road through to Moncton.
The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes), I think it was, who gave the variations in the height of land on all that route, and I think it varied from one to two hundred feet up to twelve to fifteen hundred feet. Now, in a country such as! that, if they want to build what they call a straight line, a line with easy gradients, a line that will enable freight to be carried at the lowest possible rate, I ask any common sense man in this country if it is possible through such a country as that to construct such a road as is defined by the hon member for North Norfolk ? I have lived long enough to come to the conclusion that nothing is impossible. I have concluded that capital, combined with human effort, will surmount all natural difficulties. But you have got to have the capital, and whether it is prudent to put forth the necessary human effort and exhaust the resources of this country to build a piece of road from the city of Quebec to Moncton, it will be for the people of this country to say later on.	'
Now, we have the opinion of the ex-Minister of Railways. He is a gentleman who attained to the most prominent position in his own province. He must certainly have been respected, well thought of by his associates through life, since they placed him in that position. When this government acceded to power in 1896 he was recognized as the ablest man in the province of New Brunswick, and he was asked to take It position as minister in the federal government. He was consequently called upon to preside over the Department of Railways and Canals. As to whether he has done that efficiently and well, every member in this House has the same means of ascertaining that I have. But I attended the meetings of the Railway Committee pretty regularly, and I always gave him credit for discharging his duties there in an impartial way. Now, of all the members of the government, he ought to have the best ideas about constructing and operating railways. It its his special business as head of the. Department of Railways and Canals; lie gave his whole time and attention to that; and I therefore prefer his opinion as to the advisability of undertaking to construct this transcontinental railway to the opinion of any other member of tlie government. Occupying such a position, being associated with his colleagues for seven years, enjoying all the emoluments of the office, he must be a man of very strong convictions and self-will to take the position he did on this occasion. He must be firmly convinced that if he adopted the plan proposed by the government he would be sacrificing the interests of the people of this country. Rather than do that he sacrificed his own position as a member of the government. Now, a man of that character, right or wrong in hfs position-he may be wrong, but even if lie is wrong, he certainly deserves great, credit at the handis of the people.
Now, Sir, the present debt of this country, I understand, is about $275,000,000. I seldom trouble myself with investigating these matters, because I can neither make it more nor less, and it is a good deal of trouble to me to fill my head with figures; 1 take more pleasure in other pursuits. Now, the construction of this road, taking the moderate estimate of $125,000,000, would add that sum to our present debt, and bring it up to $400,000,000. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) computed that the proposed addition to the debt of $125,000,000 would mean an increase of $125 for every head of a family in Canada. Now. just here I would like to stop a moment and make an inquiry of the Premier or of any member of the government who happens to be present-I notice one very respect-ble gentleman (the Minister of Trade and Commerce) present, who has occupied a prominent political position in this country for a great many years-I would like to inquire of him, after the many years during

which he has complained of the extravagant expenditure of money by the Conservative party, if lie endorses the present proposition submitted by this government? For years and years there was nd man in this country, I think, who was more successful in attempting to convince the people that the Conservative party were creating and imposing upon the people a debt from which they would never be able to relieve themselves. He asserted that the taxation imposed upon our people was more than any country with a population of five millions could posibly bear. He and his colleagues solicited the support of the electors of this country. They said: If you intrust us with a position on the treasury benches we will reduce the taxation; we will decrease the debt; we will get rid of this iniquitous national policy that is grinding down the people and preventing the farmers from rising. Now, I would like to know from 6ome of these lion, gentlemen how much they have reduced the debt? I would like to know how much they have reduced., the tariff of the country? I would like to know in what way they have economized sufficiently to save from three to five millions of the money of the people of this country ? I am often surprised at men of repute, men occupying positions of trust in the country, reputable men occupying the most prop minent positions, venturing to make such promises and pledges in order to secure support, and after getting the confidence of the people, backing out and refusing to redeem a single pledge that they had given.
Npw, Mr. Speaker, I am going on at greater length than I intended to at the start. In contrasting the proposition that has been placed before the House by the government with the one submitted by the hon. leader of the opposition I have come to the conclusion that the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition is much preferable to that of the government. The hon. leader of the opposition proposes, first, to extend the Intercolonial Railway which now reaches Montreal to the Georgian bay by purchasing the Canada Atlantic Railway at a cost of $12.000,000. Some hon. gentlemen say that it will cost $15,000,000. Supposing it does, we are proposing to utilize a railway which has cost the people of this country $70,000,000 in place of throwing it to one side and rendering it useless for all time to come. We propose to extend the Intercolonial Railway to Georgian bay so as to enable it to participate in carrying the products of our great western country to the markets of the world.
That is an object which it is very desirable to accomplish and one which ought to commend itself not only to the people of the west but to the people of the older provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces. I understand that the Intercolonial Railway has cost the country $70,000,000. It has lately been improved at an Mr. CARGILL.
expenditure of a large sum of money. It is now well equipped with rolling stock, including locomotives, passenger cars and freight cars. The idea of the government making a proposal to parallel the road from Quebec to Moncton at a cost of many millions of dollars and thus taking away many thousands of the revenue at present accruing to the Intercolonial Railway is something that no business man can very well comprehend. Then, we propose further to extend the road to Sudbury, or to some point on the Canadian Pacific Railway. The estimated cost of that is $4,000,000. We propose also to secure the Canadian Pacific Railway from Sudbury to Fort Wiliam at a cost of $25,000,000. Then, after buying that road we will be in a position to lease running rights to the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Northern Railway. It has been said here that if this transcontinental railway is built and handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and they own the road, any other railway company may lease running rights from the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, but if the road were constructed by the government all the railway companies in the country would be in a position to lease running rights from the government because they would get them upon the same equitable terms. No road would have any priority over another road. In this case, if we secured the Canadian Pacific Railway from Sudbury to Fort William and conducted it as a government road leasing the running rights to the Canadian Pacific Railway the Canadian Northern Railway and the Intercolonial Railway, we would have one railway accommodating the trains of three railway systems. The rental paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway would be a substantial source of revenue to this country and it would make it a very cheap track for the Intercolonial Railway. This could be managed under a commission. Now, some hon. members take exception to a road owned and operated by the government. They say it is impossible to disconnect it from politics, that political influences will be brought to bear and that on that account it will be impossible to make it pay. I think if the government of this country had constructed the Canadian Pacific Railway in place of giving a charter to the company and if they owned the road to-day they would have a very large reveuue accruing to the country from the investment. Hon. gentlemen say you cannot rid a government owned road of political influences. I say you can. There are more Van Hornes, Shaughnessys and Hays to be found in this world. They are thick. There are just as good fish in the sea as ever were caught. Suppose the country had said to Van Horne : We want you to construct the Canadian Pacific Railway, we will furnish the necessary means to do so, we want you to construct the road and to operate it. We

will give you $12,500 per month for your services. That is a very liberal salary- $12,500 a month. We will give you live per cent, on the net earnings after you get the road in operation. I am told that the gross earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway this year amount to $44,000,000, and that the net earnings amount to $15,000,000. Can any lion, gentleman tell me the total invested capital of the Canadian Pacific Railway at the present time 7 We will say $300,000,000. B'ive per cent on $15,000,000 would give $750,000 which would give a total income of $900,000. We will say $1,000,000. which, deducted from the $15,000,000 of net earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway would give $14,000,000, and which would represent the revenue that the people of Canada would derive. This would pay 4-j per cent interest on the money invested in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Suppose you reduce that to the actual capital 7 Divide that capital of $300,000,000 by two and you have $150,000,000, so that this country ought to be deriving under Van Horne's management from earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway eight or ten per cent interest on the amount invested in the construction of the road. That is a good argument in favour of government owned roads. I have almost exhausted myself and I am sure that I am wearying the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no ; go on.


Mr.   CARGII@: T,. 1 could go on and speak at greater length but at this period of the debate 1 think it quite unnecessary. I have been very diligent in my attendance in this House and in listening to the greater portion of the speakers, pro and con, and I must say that I am not like a judge who was elected to a position in one of the United States. This judge had been trying Ms first case, all the evidence was in, pro and con, and the counsel for the plaintiff and for the defendant had addressed the jury. The judge then summed up the evidence and presented to the jury the arguments of both counsel. In closing he said : Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe what the learned counsel for the plaintiff has said you will bring in a verdict for the plaintiff; if you believe what the learned counsel for the defendant has said you will bring in a verdict for the defendant, but, if like me you do not believe what either of them has said I will be blowed if I know what you should do.'
I wish to thank you and the House, Mr. Speaker, for the attention that you have paid to my remarks.


Mr. CHAS. H. PARMELEE (Shefford).: Mr. Speaker, I am not vain enough to hope that at this late stage of the debate I shall be able to contribute anything to the information of the House. At the same time I do not intend to apologize in advance for
boring and wearying the House because when it comes to that I think all members stand on about the same footing. There are, however, one or two things which I would like to say because I recognize that this is one of the greatest undertakings that this parliament has ever had to deal with. While the discussion has been long and while perhaps some of the Speakers have been more lengthy than was necessary, I cannot help feeling that on the whole the debate has been valuable, has been important and that it will be so judged by the country. If the arguments on our side have seemed to be stronger, if the discussion by members on this side has been abler, I am generous enough to soy of my hon. friends opposite that they have had a iioor case to advocate and that if they have made a poor fist of it it is because it is hard to argue against an undertaking of as good a character as that which is now before the House and the country. The hon. the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) said early in the debate that there had been no demand for this railway, and particularly that there had been no demand for it in the province of British Columbia. I think that an hon. Senator in the upper chamber said the other day that British Columbia did not want anything of this kind. I hold in my hand a press dispatch dated to-day which says :
British Columbia has given an unmistakable answer to Senator MacDonald's plea against the Grand Trunk Pacific, and to Mr. Blair's statement that British Columbia did not want the railway. The Victoria Board of Trade, always regarded as the most Conservative organization in the province, practically repudiated both statements by passing this resolution :-* Resolved that we, the Victoria Board of Trade, hereby endorse the federal government's endeavour to have constructed another transcontinental railway, and that we urge alt our representatives not to place any obstacle in the way of such construction.'
After this proposition lias been so freely debated, after the country has become perfectly familiar with the contract and with its terms. I would say that that is a very strong endorsation ; particularly coming from the Victoria Board of Trade whose conservatism, as the despatch states, is ail wool and a yard wide.
Nearly all of the principal features of this scheme have been debated over and over again, hut there are one or two phases of it to which I would ask attention for a few minutes. As an English member coming from the province of Quebec I can cordially approve of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway project for the reason, among others, that it will add largely to the cultivable area of onr province. I need scarcely remind this House that, in the past, Quebec has lost a host of people through emigration to the United States. The movement began in a small way during the troubles of 1837 when the tyranny of the family compact

goaded the people into rebellion, and when our fathers fought and bled for the liberties we now enjoy. This exodus received a fresh impetus during the civil war, owing to the bounties offered for recruits to the armies of the north as well as to great demands for labour from New England which had sent so many men to the front. Immediately after the war a great industrial development took place in New England, chiefly in the manufacture of cottons, woollens, and boots and shoes. The native American workman had drifted into other pursuits and there naturally followed a strong demand for labour from Canada as well ns from Europe. Every member of this House knows that the French Canadian has a natural aptitude for factory work, for all kinds of mechanical labour requiring skill, delicacy of touch and good taste. This is possibly inherited or, as some writers say, may have been acquired from the practice in the old days of weaving at home when all the cloth used by a family was turned out in each household, and when each household made its own boots and shoes. At any rate the French Canadians became favourite workmen in the New England factories, and as they prospered in their new homes they naturally wrote back to Quebec and invited their friends and relatives to join them. They were earning good wages. The members of the family old enough to work would put their earnings into a common fund so that their aggregate weekly wage was large. Naturally under such conditions as that the exodus grew in volume year after year until it assumed alarming proportions. I do not know the exact figures but I think lam safe in sayiug that there are a million and a half French Canadians in the New England states of whose productive energies we might have availed ourselves in developing the vast natural resources of this country. When the North-west became part of the Dominion in 1870, efforts were made by patriotic men, notably by the bishops and clergy, to induce our people to go there so that they might not be lost to Canada. These efforts have had very poor success. Manitoba was a long way off and in those days when there were no railways there it cost a great deal to transport a Canadian family to the Northwest and to maintain it until the soil could yield crops. On the other hand New England was close by and the emigrant there could begin earning wages the very morning after his arrival. That is the cheaf reason why the French Canadians failed to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them and to every one else in the west.
Then followed, as everybody knows, a period of agricultural depression and low prices, so that for years there was no very great encouragement for a young man to imitate the example of his father and start in life for himself in the bush. Disappointed at the result of their efforts to in-Mr. PARMELEE.
duce the people to go to the west, the clergy then turned their attention to colonization in the j>rovinee of Quebec, and by means of coi'duroy roads and of such colonization roads as they could prevail on the provincial government to provide, tried to make it easier for the settler to take up the wild lands and convert them into fertile fields and farms, such as exist in the older parts of the province. The name of Mon-signeur Labelle, I think, will live in the history of the province of Quebec as one of the most courageous and energetic leaders of this movement. Happily, about 1896, things began to improve, and, thanks to the adoption of a wise fiscal policy and an able and honest administration of affairs, the sun of prosperity began to shine on the Canadian farmer. The result of that improvement has been that the exodus from Canada has practically ceased ; and in fact, instead of our people going away, the flow is towards Canada, and our people are coming back to their native land.
Now, Mr, Speaker, I regard it as of the first importance that we should forestall the periodic return of hard times, and that before that day arrives we should embark on a larger and more comprehensive scheme of colonization than any that has yet been attempted ; and I can conceive of no better plan having that end in view than the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the construction of. which Is provided for in the contract before this House, running through the region lying between Abitibi and Quebec, and the region bounded by the Little Alleghany or Blue mountains and the American frontier to the south of the St. Lawrence. The best authorities which I have been able to consult declare without hesitation that this region contains a vast amount of fertile land, that it is well watered and heavily timbered, and that it has a pulp supply to last for generations. I do not believe much in inflicting figures on the House, but I wish to show how the pulp Industry has grown, and what vast strides it has made in the last few years, I think that within the lifetime of men now in this House it will become perhaps the largest single industry in this country. The growth of the pulp industry in Canada is shown by the following statistics taken from the Census Returns of 1881, 1891 and 1901 :
1881.	1891.	1901.Number of mills.. Number of e m-	3	24	30employees	
Earnings of em-	68	1,025	4,550ployees	$15,720 $ 292,009	$1,587,597Value of product..	63,300	1,057,810	6,176,300
The census of 1901 shows that there were fifteen mills in Quebec, with a product of $3,508,068, and seven mills in Ontario, with a product of $1,694,234. The value of wood pulp exported from Canada to all countries increased from $280,619 in 1891 to $1,937,-

207 in 1901 ; and the value of pulp exported to the British islands increased from $113,557, in 1896, to $934,722, in 1901. The value of wood pulp imported by the British islands from all countries increased from $8,198,615, in 1896, to $11,709,607 in 1901. The present yearly production of wood pulp in Canada is about 240,000 tons, and a cord of wood yields a ton of chemical pulp. The government exploration report of 1900 estimates that the pulp wood forests in Ontario, north of the height of land, will cut 288,000,000 cords, and if the present production of pulp in the country be multiplied by twenty the supply in that part of Ontario is sufficient to last sixty years, which is the period required for a pulp wood forest to reproduce itself. In Quebec, as well as in Ontario, on the Hudson Bay slope, there are vast forests of pulp wood, and in both regions there are large rivers and many waterfalls to supply motive power for mills. Assuming the forests in those regions, to be properly conserved, the pulp industry alone, if developed to the capacity of the country to be traversed by' the National Transcontinental Railway, would supply traffic for twenty trains of thirty loaded cars per day, as long as trees grow and waters flow.
Here are all the conditions necessary to the establishment of hundreds of groups of prosperous settlements in that region. The French 'Canadian is a natural born ddfri-cheur. In that line he has no superior ; and, given mines, lumber camps and pulp -mills in which to get a start until he has secured a foothold in the country, I believe he will do there what he has done in the older parts of the province of Quebec, and convert it into a rich agricultural country, capable of supporting a happy and prosperous people. I for one have not the slightest doubt that the Grand Trunk Pacific is the best possible agent we can invoke for carrying out such a scheme of colonization. I have no hesitation in asserting that the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific through the northern part of Quebec will do more for colonization than all the efforts that have ever been made in the past ; and I 'need hardly tell this House that if we are able to retain our own people on their native soil, we shall be repaid a hundredfold for the expenditure we shall be obliged to make. I might also point out that the older parts of Ontario and Quebec will be directly benefited by the opening up to settlement of a country of such magnitude as the northern part of Quebec and what is called New Ontario. It will give a further impetus to Industry. It will open up new markets for our manufacturers, and help the older sections of the country to grow and prosper. Suppose that this region of which I have been speaking, from Abitibi to Quebec, were a colony of itself or belonged to another country, we can all fancy how much rejoicing there would be on the part of men of all parties if by some happy stroke of fortune, it came to
be annexed to us and became a part of the province of Quebec. As it is now, lying there undeveloped, and with no railway communication, it is of no more use to us than if it belonged to another country or another planet. It is of no use to us and of no use even to itself. The construction of a railway would at once give it a potential value, and if as we are told and believe it possesses resources well worthy of developing, the province of Quebec ought to congratulate itself on the policy of this government.
When I hear our lion, friends opposite denouncing and decrying new Ontario and new Quebec as wretched deserts for that is what, after all, their criticisms amount to-I am reminded of the purchase by the Americans of Alaska. Over thirty years ago the United States paid $7,500,000 for Alaska, and those of us who are old enough can well recall that Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, was most bitterly criticised and assailed for having made a purchase of that kind. It was said thit he had bought a slice of Siberia, far removed from the nearest settlements of the United States, and destined to remain for ever an Arctic waste. We do not hear any talk of that kind now. We do not hear that the bargain was a bad one or that too much was paid for that country. We hear of everything- the reverse, because it has turned out that in Alaska there are rich gold mines, besides salmon and seal fisheries, which are most valuable. In fact, a trunk railway is being built to-day in that country with branch lines and a considerable fleet of steamers plying between Puget Sound and Juneau, carrying out the products of Alaska and carrying in the manufactured goods and other products of the east.	And
strangest of all, it has been found that there are large areas in the interior adapted to sheep ranching and even cattle raising. I merely mention this to show how dangerous it is, how unwise and liow unsafe, to prophesy unless you know about the future of the new regions in the north. If Alaska lias turned out so well, we are surely warranted in believing that new Ontario and new Quebec, once they have been developed by railway facilities, once their vast mineral, timber and agricultural resources are brought to light, will prove to be worth a great deal more than the cost of this road. Not only that, but as soon as this railway is built, it will enable us to exploit that still vaster region around James' bay, a region said to be rich in minerals, and in which, according to some reports, there are vast deposits of coal, not merely lignite, but steam coal of good quality, besides large areas of copper and ironbearing ores. And everybody knows that the fisheries of Hudson bay will in time become a national asset of no little value. As I observed a moment ago, the development

of new Quebec, together with the region lying between Etclteinan amt St. Francis river, back from the south shore of the St. Lawrence, will also be the centre of large and prosperous settlements which will furnish a market for our manufacturers. Our people in the east are certain to benefit also by the impetus that will be given to immigration into the North-west. For my part, while 1 like to see the North-west grow, I do fee! that we should take advantage of every possible means to develop the east. We in the older provinces assumed a very heavy responsibility when we built the Canadian Pacific Railway, and 1 may be pardoned if I contrast, in a general way, the terms and conditions of the two contracts. If, in 1880, this country was a lilts to spend $135,000,000 or $140,000,000 for the purpose of building a transcontinental road -or rather a portion of a transcontinental road-this country now, having a far larger population, having a revenue twice as large, ought to be able to undertake with a liglit heart a scheme of this kind, which calls for, at the outside, an expenditure of but $14,000,000 or $15,000,000. I might add that nobody now would undertake to say that, although the. terms under which we secured the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway were severe, although we had to pay a great deal for it, after all the advantages have not more than paid for the outlay. Another thing I would say about the proposition before us is tills, that it carries with it no land grant, that our public domain in the future, except that which was bartered away in days gone by by the Conservative regime, will be kept for the settlers. In addition, this contract carries no tax exemption; and, most important of all, the government have secured absolute control of the rates, whereas under the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the government cannot touch the rates until the company will have earned ten per cent, which means that the rates can never be touched at all.
When this railway is built not only will It develop the great North-west and British Columbia, but the hinterland of Ontario and Quebec, and thus enable us to secure, not only a convenient exit for the products of the North-west to the sea, but a market for our manufactured goods, and the rates of freight in each case will be lower than they are at present. In tliat way this scheme will be a vast advantage to the eastern manufacturers, and give the people of the east some return for the heavy outlay they have made to secure railway facilities for the. west.
In one of his speeches, the great Edward Burke drew a striking picture of the growth of the thirteen colonies, which, without doing violence to the proprieties or to truth, one may, with the alteration of a word or two, apply to the Canadian North-west :
Suppose that in the year 1870, when this region was joined to confederation, the angel of Mr. PARMELEE.
some auspicious youth in old Canada had drawn up the curtain, unfolding the rising glory of the new land, and had said: ' Young man, there is the North-west, at present a seminal principle rather than a formed body, which now serves for little more than to amuse you with stories of savage men and uncouth manners, yet shall, ere you taste of death, possess over half a million prosperous people and take its place-this child of England's old age-as one of the principal exporters of food to the United Kingdom. If this state of the North-west had been foretold, would it not have required all the sanguine credulity of youth and all the fervid glow of enthusiasm, to make him believe it '?
Now, Sir, whilst we are all proud of the strides made by the North-west, and have high hopes of its future, we in the older provinces have reason to rejoice that our interests and our welfare are also being consulted by the present policy of the government. This is what makes it a truly national policy in a far wider sense than that in which the phrase is used by our protectionist brethren. It is a policy which, besides peopling the North-west and British Columbia, adds greatly to the economic and industrial possibilities of Quebec, Ontario and the provinces clown by the sea, the original partners in the compact of confederation, who have so far borne the heat and burden of the day without receiving any very direct benefit. It is a policy, in short, that not only helps new Canada, west of Lake Superior, but old Canada as well. And henceforth we in the east, as an unselfish parent, can turn with enthusiasm to the labour of developing oiur new empire added to our present estate by this new railway, so that we may not be outstripped whether in material or political importance by our vigorous sons in the west. Now', perhaps I have kept the House too long. But I do wish to say that I believe thoroughly In this transcontinental scheme, because it is a Canadian scheme ; because, starting from the golden Pacific, it runs to the broad Atlantic over Canadian territory ; because it meets the aspirations of the people of this country to be a nation ; because it will do more than anything that has ever been done before to unite the provinces which compose this Dominion, and to make all the people feel that they belong to Canada, to a nation that has a great future ; because, in short, it will develop a national spirit. I think it was in that spirit that this scheme was conceived by the right hon. leader of the government, and I think to him is due the credit, as these delicate negotiations were conducted largely by himself. And I think the country generally will admit that the terms he has secured are far better than could have been anticipated. The outlay is a mere bagatelle, considering our resources ; and if there is any risk, it is largely shifted to the shoulders of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. And it is a great thing, in a scheme of this kind, looking to the construction and operation of a transconti-

uental line, that the government should have secured the guarantee of so powerful a corporation as the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, which, having its lines all over the east, is in a position, the moment the Grand Trunk Pacific is constructed, to handle the traffic between the east and the west. Not only that, but the Grand Trunk Railway Company is a vast corporation and, under the terms of this agreement, it will be able to raise its capital at a very low rate of interest, so that, though the receipts may not be very large at the outset of the road's operation, the company will have secured its money upon such easy terms that the fixed charges will, perhaps, not be more than 50 per cent of the fixed charge upon any other road in this country. While the bargain seems to be largely in favour of the government, that, in my mind, is the reason why, in the long run, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will be able to carry out its obligations and do the things it has contracted with this government to do. Now, for my part, I think that when this road is built immense development will follow, the tide of immigration will flow iuto Canada in even greater volume than now. There are men in this House and out of it who say that there is no urgency, that there is no hurry to build this road, that the government has rushed blindly into this proposition. I find it hard to believe that hon. gentlemen on the other side can be absolutely frank and honest when they make declarations of that kind. But if they are, I have not a very high opinion of their powers of observation and capacity for seeing what is going on in this country. Everybody knows that the great need of Canada, from the very beginning, has been population, and everybody knows the struggle we have made to secure population and turn the tide in our direction. Everybody knows that for years and years our efforts, great as they were, were rewarded with but paltry results. Now, we find that the people are coming to us from all over the world, notably from the United States, to settle up our great western country. And if we are to keep them and if more are to follow, there is imperative necessity for providing them with railway facilities and for giving them a chance to get their products to market, and, not only that, but to give them favourable freight rates for the merchandise they are to buy from the east. So, I say, taking it in the larger political sense, taking it in a material and economic sense, no scheme that has been proposed by the government or considered by the parliament of Canada has been equal to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme which is now before us.


Mr.  G. BABE@Nicolet: We are now facing two schemes or projects, one submitted by the government and the other submitted by the leader of the opposition. The government proposes to have a road
from ocean to ocean, part to be built by the government and part by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The government undertake to build from Moncton to Winnipeg, a distance of about 2,000 miles, while the other part is about 1,300 miles, making in all about 3,300 miles. Sir, I am not going to say that this road would not be a good thing in any way. I know that it will open an agricultural territory which will afford a field for colonization for many years to come. I know also that the road will run through a lumber country, and that the development of that country will be an advantage. It will pass through other places where, no doubt, mines can be developed. But with all these advantages is the government justified in undertaking the proposed expenditure? In my humble opinion, this road, as proposed, could not be built for less than $150,000,000.
L think I am giving the highest figures that were quoted. There is no doubt in my mind if you are to build a road such as described by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), it could not cost less than $150,000,000. Now let me take the figures quoted by an hon. member on this side of the House, I forget what county he represents; however, I think he was not far from the truth. He said that the Intercolonial cost $53,000 a mile. I did not hear any member from the government side contradict those figures, so 1 take them to be true. The Intercolonial road is a good road, but it is not equal to the road that the member for North Norfolk describes as the road the government will build. He said that this new road will be so well built that the grades will not be over twenty-one feet to the mile, that the curvatures will be so light that an engine can haul a train over a mile in length. Now, to make such a road as that would cost $20,000 a mile more than the Intercolonial which cost $53,000 per mile. So that calculating at $73,000 per mile we have the following figures : From Winnipeg to Moncton-2,000 miles-$146,000,000, to which adding $4,000,000, for the purchase of the Quebec bridge, the grand total reaches $150,000,000 as I have already stated. I think that the scheme submitted by the leader of the opposition is better than that proposed by the government, as the water and rail route would carry grain a great deal cheaper than the ail-rail route. In fact the Grand Trunk Pacific road, if built as the government promise, will never be fit for the transportation of grain from the North-west, and will never be able to compete with the water-and-rail route. In spite of our bad equipment as to (Canals and elevators, in spite of the imperfect equipment of the port of Montreal, we find that the Americans are afraid of Montreal competition for shipments to Europe. 1 listened the other day to the speech of the Postmaster General, and I heard him say that the government was not in favour of

removing the duties from the ports of Montreal and Quebec. I was sorry to hear him make such a statement, because when, not very long ago, the government took the duty off the canals, at once our neighbours began to take alarm. I have under my hand an extract from the New York ' Herald ' of the 22nd instant, which I will read to the House :
GRAIN FOR EUROPE BY WAY OF MONTREAL Seaboard Shippers Alarmed by Decline of Exports Through New York and Boston.
(Spacial despatch to the ' Herald.')
Chicago, Friday.-Lake shipments of corn for Montreal have aggregated 1,000,000 bushels during the past few days. This fact, together with the decline of 60 per cent in the grain export shipments through Boston, and of 29 per cent through New York, has caused great alarm among the export shippers on the seaboard. The Western Elevator Association and kindred associations in Baltimore, Boston and New York have appointed committees to try to induce the eastbound roads from Chicago to reduce their rates on grain for export by way of the seaboard ports, so that these roads can compete with Montreal.
The trade of the Montreal ports is due entirely to the action of the government in making the Canadian canals free. Grain can now be shipped from Chicago to Montreal for export to Liverpool three cents a bushel cheaper than it can be routed by part-rail, part-lake, through Boston. When it is known that a fraction of a cent a bushel will divert all the grain that can possibly go through a port, the advantage that Montreal has over American ports will be readily seen.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. BALL.: Mr. Speaker, if the Americans are alarmed at the removal by the Canadian government of the canal tolls, what will they be If the government remove all charges from the port of Montreal, Quebec and the other ports so as to make them free ports ? If the government should improve the navigation of the St. Lawrence river system in the manner suggested in the learned and elaborate speech of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), the Americans would not only he alarmed, but they would be sore; they would have as we say in French ' la peur et le mal.' I heard the other day the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) saying that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) contemplated a scheme similar to the one proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. I was glad to hear that, because it is in accordance with my views. He said that he was with the ex-minister in the county of Restigouche, and there heard the hon. ex-mi nistei- state that the government would buy the Canada Atlantic Railway and some other road in order to make a rail and water route. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) Mr. BALL.
some days ago addressing this House stated that he was away when the hon. leader of the opposition made his speech, but that he read it carefully, and that he was inclined to adopt the policy enunciated by the leader of the opposition. However, he decided to first find out what such a scheme would cost and he got the help of a civil engineer named Doucet, an able man who could make a proper estimate, a man who was accustomed to that work, having been employed by different companies, especially by the Canadian Pacific Railway. This engineer estimated that it would cost to construct the whole road 883,000,000, but the hon. member stated that he was going to vote for the scheme of the government. An hon. member on this side of the House asked him if it was because the plan of the hon. leader of the opposition was too expensive. The hon. member for Labelle replied : No, that even if the enterprise of the government should cost $20,000,000 more he would still vote for it. He gave no reason for that change of mind. He said further, however, that he would vote to take off the part from Quebec to Moncton. Mr. Speaker, if there are many government supporters of that character and of that independent way of speaking, and they would agree among themselves so that each of them would take a slice off the road, I would not be at all surprised if $13,000,000 would be quite sufficient to build what would be left. He said that the thing would cost $83,000,000. Well, Sir, that confirms me in the belief that the scheme of the leader of the opposition is the better of the two, because, as 1 have already stated, the other will cost $150,000,000, so that by adopting the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition there will be a saving of $67,000,000. I would advise the House to adopt the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition, even if it would cost this amount, and apply the $67,000,000 saved as follows :	Instead of
building a road from Quebec or Levis to Moncton, take say $20,000,000 and double track the Intercolonial Railway from Moncton to Matapedia. From Matapedia to Riviere du Loup you might use the single track and build a new short line between these two points, and in that way effect a shortening of the distance by about thil'ty-six miles. Thus the heavy freight and the through-freight could pass by that straight line and the local trade could continue to go around where the road is built now. I might say en passant, while we are speaking of Matapedia, that you might take another $6,000,000 out of the $67,000,000 and purchase the Baie des Chaleurs road from Matapedia to Paspebiac. This line could be purchased for a couple of million of dollars, a length of 80 or 100 miles. Then for $4,000,000 you could construct a road from Paspebiac to Gasp6 Basin, and you would thereby make two hon. members

very happy, the hon. member for Bona-venture and the hon. member for Gasp6. Sou would also make the men who live all along the Baie des Chaleurs happy, because these people have been deprived of a railway and you would help at the same time to develop and colonize between Paspebiac and Gaspe Basin a large area of good land. Start from Riviere du Loup and go to Chaudiere Junction on your double track. From there you can use the Drummond County Railway, which is now in first-class order ; and, instead of building a double track on that part of the road, from Chau-diere Junction to 'St. Lambert, you can. buy the South Shore Railway, which is now about bankrupt. You can build from Cliau-di&re Junction to S't. Francis, a distance of about eighty miles, or, a little more, and you can purchase a running road which is built from that place to St. Lambert. The whole thing would cost about $6,000,000. It would not cost more than it would to build a double track, and you would make happy the members from the counties of Levis. Lotbimiere, Nieolet, Yamaskn, Richelieu, Chambly and Vercheres; and the people in the country from Quebec to Montreal would be all happy, and will bless this government. The balance remaining could be applied, part to extend the road of the Quebec and Lake St. John railway for colonization purposes, and also for the pulp traffic, and the rest could be applied to build colonization roads where they are needed ; and yon would make more happy people in every part of Canada. In that way you would have sufficient colonization land to supply immigration for fifty years to come.
(Some contend that the proposed road between Quebec and Moncton will shorten the distance 50 miles, others 120 miles. Suppose the distance is shortened 100 miles. lithe government are serious in saying that they are going to build that part of the road, it will have the effect not only of ruining the Intercolonial Railway, but of causing the country to lose some millions of dollars every year, and here is my reason for saying so. Suppose, that portion of the road can be built-because for the last three or four weeks we have been indulging in suppositious-in the style suggested by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who was put up to give the answer of the government to the speech of the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) ; it would have the effect of obtaining for the Grand Trunk Pacific all the traffic from Halifax and St. John, and vice versa. I have heard some one say that it would not injure the Intercolonial, because the Intercolonial is going to carry the freight of the Grand Trunk Pacific from St. John to Moncton, from Moncton to St. John, from Moncton to Halifax, and from Halifax to Moncton. Well, after what we have seen of the generosity of the government to the Grand
Trunk Pacific, you may be sure that the government will give transportation on such easy terms to and from these places, that the Intercolonial instead of making something out of it, will lose money every day. For my part, I am very sure that the intercolonial Railway will lose half of its earnings. The earnings of the Intercolonial at present are $6,000,000 per annum, and its expenditure is about the same figure. If you take half the earnings, I do not think the expenses will be much less than they are now ; consequently, you will be face to face with a deficit of about $3,000,000 every year which capitalized equals $100,000,000. So that you will not only sacrifice the $70,000,000 that the Intercolonial cost, but you will throw a capital of $100,000,000 into the sea or the river St. Lawrence.
To make the House believe that we on this side are exaggerating the consequences of this Bill, I see in the papers all kinds of statements. In a very important paper published in Montreal, a French paper, which has the largest circulation of all the papers of the Dominiou, I find the following. One of my friends advised me to address the House, during the remainder of my speech in French, as he thought I would express myself better in that tongue, but as evidently among the many members present but one or two would understand me, and I want everybody to understand what I say, I think I had better proceed in English. Here is what the French paper says :
A few notes on the Grand Trunk Pacific. r
It cannot be questioned that the feeling aroused in some quarters by the proposal of building a line which would compete with the Intercolonial is only a feigned feeling. As we have already stated, there is not a single railway line, which would shrink from1 the necessity of paralleling itself, did circumstances call for such action. We have already referred to the Canadian Pacific, which is a case near at hand ; but here is another case which knocks to the ground the whole superstructure. An American railway, the Great Northern, had a tunnel built under the Cascade mountains, which cost $3,000,000 ; but having found a more suitable pass, which offered a better level, they have decided to build a new tunnel.
The Great Northern had a tunnel built, which cost $3,000,000, and after that they found a pass more suitable, and they abandoned the tunnel which cost $3,000,000, and built another one. They did not hesitate a moment to sacrifice the first tunnel and build another, but the new tunnel belonged to the same company. "But in this case, while the government did not hesitate to sacrifice the Intercolonial Railway and build the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the new competing line is not being built for the government itself. I do not think that the Great Northern Company would have abandoned this tunnel and built another one for another railway company. The writer in that newspaper goes on further to say that Mr. Carnegie would not hesitate a minute,

if lie had a mill built and found it more profitable to build another mill-would not hesitate to sacrifice the old mill and build another one. But I do not think Mr. Carnegie would build another mill for his neighbour. For my part, X do not believe that this road from Quebec to Moncton will be built ; but if it should be, what will be the result ? The result will be that you will have two local roads, two local roads instead of one. Do you imagine for a moment that the Grand Trunk Railway-because the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway are one and the same-do you imagine for a moment that when a Grand Trunk Railway train is at Levis, it will go down to Halifax when it will be 337 miles shorter to go to St. John? But taking off that hundred miles which they say will be saved, there would still be; left 237 miles. Well, it costs 70 cents, or about that, for a train to run a mile on the track. Make it five trains per day to go and return, what would be the result to the Grand Trunk Railway? Five trips a day at $23.59 per train would make $235.90 that the Grand Trunk Railway would lose per day, and for three hundred days that would make $707,700. Do you believe, Sir, for a moment that the Grand Trunk Railway will lose this amount for the sole pleasure of passing on all Canadian soil ? I do not think so. They like Canada very well, because they have their road there, but they also like the states ; and they are fond of money.
Some say that it would not cost that amount, because the Grand Trunk Pacific is obliged to pay the interest on the money. Some say they pay the interest after seven years and some after ten years. I disagree with them both, and I say that the government will never receive a cent of interest from the Grand Trunk Pacific. If we may take the past as an indication of the future, we can say this without danger of making any mistake. When the Grand Trunk built its road years ago it borrowed from the government $25,000,000. Did it ever pay the interest on that amount ? Did it ever pay the capital ? Not a dollar. I do not blame the Grand Trunk for that. I do not blame the government for it either. The Grand Trunk did not pay because it could not pay, and the government was right in recognizing that fact. It will be the same in this case; the Grand Trunk will never pay a cent of interest, and the government will not take the road from them after the period of fifty years is over-though I do not think I shail live long enough to see about that. When the government bought the Drummond County Railway, it made a deal with the Grand Trunk for the Intercolonial trains to pass over a certain portion of the Grand Trunk from L6vis to Chaudigre Junction and from Ste. Rosalie to Montreal. It being stipulated that the Grand 'Trunk would build a double track from Ste. Rosalie to Mr. BALL.
Montreal. The government paid $120,000 every year during the six years that contract was made. But the Grand Trunk never doubled-tracked its line from Ste. Rosalie or St. Hyacinthe to Montreal. The result is that the Intercolonial trains are delayed between Ste. Rosalie and Montreal. I do not know how much the through trains are delayed, but 1 know that the Nicolet train is from half an hour t,o an hour late every day. Well, Sir, 1 do not blame the Grand Trunk for taking, as we say in French, la part du lion, when it is offered to them.
The member for Bonaventure (Mr. March) in his speech the other day complained of the members on this side of the House. He said that we had never said anything good of the ex-Miuister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) as' long as he was Minister of Railways and Canals, but that now that he is out of office, he is our prophet and we extol him as a very good man. Well, as he is a convert we havei a right to admire him. But I would ask, on the other hand, is there anything strong enough for lion, gentlemen on the other side to say in denunciation of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals They say that he left the cabinet through jealousy, that he was not pleased because they arranged this scheme and did not consult him. Do you believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is a single man on either side of this House who, under similar circumstances, would not have done exactly as the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) did ? And when the party of the hon. gentlemen opposite had used all the words they could think of against the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals they commenced to caricature him. They made cartoons presenting him as every kind of animal. I recollect one cartoon, and I am very sorry to say It appeared in a French paper, the organ created specially to defend the government, including the Minister of Railways and Canals.
He was presented in one of these cartoons as a fox looking wistfully at a bunch of grapes on a vine. But they were too high for him to reach, and he turned round and went away saying that they were not ripe enough. Well, Sir, I think the artist who drew that cartoon made a mistake, for, instead of making a fox he made a cat. At first when I looked at it I did not know what it meant, but after I made up my mind that it must be a cat watching for the rats who were underneath the vine gnawing at the roots. Well, I think the picture is pretty correct when we understand that the vine represents the Intercolonial. We have often heard it said that this road must be built right away, ' to-day and not to-morrow.' Well, I think the right hon. gentleman who leads the House has gone one better on the late Sir John A. Macdonald who, when any matter was presented to him for decision, always used to put it off till to-morrow. Let me ask : Is it bet-

ter to decide a tiling right away or to decide it next day ? The French have a proverb which says, la mi it porfce conseil, that is to say, it is well to reflect on a thing over night. The contract for the Yukon Kailway was signed two days before the opening of the session, and by that contract the country lost $500,000. The Drummond County Railway was bought in haste, but through the efforts or an hon. Senator the country paid $500,000 less than it would have paid if the contract had been carried out as it was made. Now, if the country was saved half a million dollars on a contract amounting to $15,000,000, then in the same ratio, the country would save $15,000,000 on a contract amounting to $150,000,000, if the government were wise enough to wait till to-morow. Now, Sir, 1 do not want to say anything against the Grand Trunk Railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific. They do well to take what is offered to them, and I do not want to blame them for it ; and perhaps if my name was the Grand Trunk, I would do the same.


Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: Mr. Speaker, you may well imagine that it is not with a very keen zest that one rises to take part in the debate at this stage ; but as representing a portion of the country that is greatly interested in the proposition now before the House, and as one who has, in season and out of season, been urging upon the government for months the absolute necessity of bringing down some such proposition as this, I deem it only right for me to state my opinions upon this subject. I congratulate the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Ball) upon the fact that he seems to have a much better appreciation of the wealth of the northern part of this country and of its needs, as concerns railway facilities, than some hon. gentlemen opposite representing sections of the good old province of Ontario, and very much better, I may say, than the hon. gentleman who is his leader from the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman has in some degree endorsed the proposition submitted to parliament by the leader of the government, and upon that fact I congratulate him. I notice that he complains that in his section of the province of Quebec the railway facilities are not entirely adequate nor entirely satisfactory. He complained that on one road the passenger trains were day after day half an hour late. I am sure therefore, that he will be able to sympathize with the people of the North-west Territories who, for week after week and month after month, since the beginning of the present year, during the whole of last winter, had to submit to passenger trains being not only half an hour late, but five or six hours late, and frequently twenty-four to thirty hours late.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while this debate, which has been continuing for the past three weeks, has been very valuable and interesting, it has been to some extent circumscribed. It is to be remembered that the Dominion of Canada as a wheat producer and a meat producer is in business in competition with many other countries in the world's markets, and I have regretted that some members of the House who have spoken-and who are competent to do it well-should not have dealt with this great subject from that point of view. 1 would not presume myself to go at any length into that phase of the matter. But let me call to your attention the position of this country as a wheat producer in contrast with the position of certain other countries which are our competitors. Russia and Argentina, instead of the United States, are fast becoming our chief competitors in the world's market in the production of wheat. Argentina has four different wheat provinces which have a nominal area of 240,000 square miles and that area is served by 7,080 miles of railway, being three miles of railway to each square miles of area, or practically that. Compare that Condition of affairs with the condition of affairs in the North-west Territories of Canada. We have in the North-west Territories over 300,000 square miles of land and we have there only 2,550 miles of railway which is less than one mile of railway for each square mile of territory as against three miles of railway in the Argentine Republic. The average distance of the Argentina farmer from his railway shipping point is less than ten miles and the average cost per bushel of moving his wheat from the farm to the railway shipping point is between two and three cents per bushel. The average cost of removing grain from the initial railway point to the shipping port is seven cents a bushel. In the North-west Territories the average distance of the farmer from the railway shipping point, is I think considerably greater and I am certain that the average cost of_ moving wheat from the farm to the railway point is fully double that in the Argentine republic, while the cost of moving wheat from the initial railway point to the shipping port in the case of the North-west Territories is fully 18 to 20 cents per bushel as against seven cents, per bushel in the case of the Argentine republic. The average cost of moving wheat from the Argentine farm to Liverpool is about 161 cents per bushel notwithstanding the fact that the country is very much farther from Liverpool than the North-west Territories are, while the average cost of moving wheat from the farm in the Northwest Territories to Liverpool is not less than 29 to 30 cents per bushel. I have gleaned these figures from an article which appeared in the 'Journal of Political Science' in June, 1902, and I commend this article to hon. members of this House as containing very valuable and Interesting information upon this subject. In the summary of the article which dealt more particularly with' a

comparison of the conditions in the United States and the Argentine republic the average cost of moving wheat from the Argentine republic, although the ocean carriage from their shipping ports is four or five cents higher, is given as much less than the average cost of moving wheat from the farm in the United States while in the case of the Canadian farmer the disadvantage is very much greater.


Mr. BROCK.: To what extent will this new railway if built reduce the cost of moving wheat from the North-west Territories to Liverpool ?


Thomas Walter Scott: That is a point which I propose to deal with at some length later on.


William Rees Brock: When you are making these comparisons it might be handy to have the two together.


Thomas Walter Scott: In my opinion the proposition which lias been submitted by the right lion, leader of the government gives us the hope of arriving at the very lowest possible cost at which wheat can be taken from the North-west Territories, and I shall endeavour at a later stage to go into a further analysis of that point. The position of the North-west and Manitoba farmer during the past two years has been much worse than that indicated by the figures I have quoted, because he has not only been charged during the past two years the freight rate that I have mentioned but he has been put to a tremendous further loss, a loss which I myself calculated at an earlier stage of this session as at least .$5,000,000 which is a considerable amount when sustained by half a million souls and he has been put to this further tremendous loss by reason of the inadequacy of the railway facilities which we have at the present time. At an earlier stage of this session I made a presentation of the facts concerning the lack of railway facilities in Manitoba and the North-west Territories and I may say in passing that I was at once accused by lion, gentlemen on the other side of the House with endeavouring to prepare the way for some immense railway scheme. As I said at that time that purpose was not at all in my mind but at the same time I cannot deny that the facts that I cited and that the case that I was then able to make out did form a powerful argument in favour of the proposition, that additional railway facilities are most urgently required and required at the earliest possible moment. As a matter of fact, I was at that time under the impression that there ware no two opinions anywhere in this country as to the urgent need of a new transcontinental railway, and what I endeavoured to impress upon the House when I spoke upon this question, on the 5th of May, I think, was that these new lines were not only required at the earliest possible moment, but, that the earliest possible moment at which they could be constructed would be too late to furnish the relief that the people of Mnni-Mr. SCOTT.
toba and the North-west Territories were tlien demanding and are now demanding. It Is, as I said then, a self-evident proposition that no new railway line can be constructed from Winnipeg eastward this year, and when I spoke I said that relief was most urgently demanded this year, immediately. I made two suggestions to the House at that time. The first was that an action should be taken by the government in the courts to determine whether the Canadian Pacific Railway had not- by its failure to give efficient railway service, which failure is capable of ample proof and which is admitted by the Canadian Pacific Railway officials themselves, forfeited its charter rights. I made another suggestion that the protection afforded the company respecting the supply of cars for wheat traffic by the words 'without undue delay' which appeared in the Manitoba Grain Act as it was passed by this House three years ago should be eliminated from the Act so as to leave the company liable for damages under tlie General Railway Act for failure to supply cars sufficient to handle the traffic within reasonable time. I am pleased to say that the government adopted the second of these suggestions and that these words have been stricken out of the Manitoba Grain Act by an amendment which passed through the House a few days ago. I am pleased to say further that the discussion in May has brought about an immediate result in the way bf there being an increased activity in the handling of freight. A few days after the debate occurred I received a letter from a friend in Regina from which the following is an extract :
Your exposition of the facts Is certainly having an effect on the company, for this week there has been a wonderful improvement and freight has been arriving in one-third the time it took three and four weeks ago. We now get shipments from Winnipeg in the same month in which they were shipped.
A wonderful thing. Goods are carried 356 miles in a month.
The staff in the freight shed has been increased by the addition of several hands.
But, Mr. Speaker, if it can be shown that with the very greatest difficulty the Canadian Pacific Railway is now, after two years of aggravated congestion, able to give bare satisfaction to the people of Manitoba and tlie Nortb-wost Territories, is that to be taken as a good, reason why no new railway enterprise is needed or why no further railway facilities are required ? I wish to make a passing reference to the attitude of the North-west members and the North-west and Manitoba people towards the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I have observed since I came to this House that it was not possible for any member to offer any sort of criticism, no matter what circumstances would .iustify criticism, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway, with-

out laying himself open to a shower of denunciation from the Conservative press In eastern Canada, and from the Conservative members of this House, led usually, I am sorry to say, by the hon. member for St. Mary's division of Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte). Because I said in May last that, on account of the lack of facilities on the Canadian Pacific Kailway in western Canada, cattle-men were obliged to drive their cattle across the border to American lines and to have them shipped to Boston by the Great Northern and other railways, I was at once accused by the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) of being an enemy of the all-Canadian idea. Because I stated, too, that in January last we had in Manitoba and the North-west Territories 13,000,000 bushels of wheat awaiting shipment, while the Canadian Pacific Railway could not promise to carry out more than 0,000,000 bushels of that wheat before the roads broke in the spring, before the time when the farmers should have all their wheat off their farms and at the railway points and because I stated that the Canadian Pacific Railway, adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude, Would not allow any other company to come in and relieve the congestion in wheat at that time existing, I was accused, and other members from the west who endeavoured to press the same point were accused, of a lack of patriotism. I stated also that about the beginning of the present year orders for wheat were received from Australia by Vancouver dealers orders that had to be filled and that could only be filled by being sent across the line to the state of Washington, for the reason that the Canadian Pacific Railway did not have the facilities to haul the wheat across the mountains to deliver it in Vancouver, and for this I was accused, and another gentleman who endeavoured to press the matter on the attention of the people of the east in order to bring about relief, was accused with me of a lack of patriotism, with being an enemy to Canadian channels. Why, everything that was said on this point by members from Manitoba and the North-west was said for the purpose of bringing about a proper realization of these difficulties by parliament and by the people of eastern Canada, so that the conditions would be remedied and so that our cattle and our wheat would not be forced into American channels and orders received by Canadian dealers from sister colonies would be filled with Canadian wheat instead of, as happened last winter, with wheat grown south of the 49tli parallel. If the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) were here I would call him to witness that I myself at this, time am supporting heartily and enthusiastically this proposition brought down by the hon. Prime Minister, which is the first proposition ever laid before the parliament of this country effectively embodying the all-Canadian idea. I am supporting this 319
measure heartily and enthusiastically as is every hon. member on this side of the House from the west and as are practically all the people in the west, which is proved by the statement read here from the pen of the well known Conservative, Mr. John Hawkes, a Conservative editor of Carnduff, which was rend by the right lion, the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This prominent and strong Conservative, Mr. Hawkes, most warmly and strongly upholds the scheme of the Prime Minister. He is a gentleman with whom I am well acquainted, because in the general elections three years ago, he followed me throughout the whole district of Assini-boia speaking in the interests of the late Mr. Davin and hon. gentlemen opposite. Mr. Hawkes is a gentleman for whom I always had a very high respect, and I do not need to tell you that my respect for him is not lessened by the good sense he has shown in coming out in favour of this well chosen and patriotic proposition. Before I leave that point I would like to refer to the fact- and if the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) was here I would ask his attention to it as he referred to the same phase of the question the other evening-I would like to call the attention of this parliament, particularly of hon. gentlemen opposite, to the fact that it was not the leader of a Liberal party or the head of a Liberal government, but the leader of a Conservative party and the head of a Conservative government who about three years ago made a contract with a firm of railway contractors in New York to connect Winnipeg and Duluth with a railway system to divert Manitoba products through American channels.


Mr. CLANCY.: Was that the object'
Mr. iSCOTT. That was going to be one of the fruits certainly of the contract made by Sir. Hugh John Macdonald with the Xiessrs. Macdonald of New York three years ago.


Samuel Hughes: Where could evidence of that contract be found? Would the hon. gentleman furnish some evidence of that contract other than his mere statement ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I have not the contract in my pocket or my desk, but if the hon. gentleman will come to Room 48 after I have concluded my few remarks, or at any other time between now and next Sunday, I will be glad to put him in possession of a copy of that contract.
I was going to say with respect to my own attitude towards the Canadian Pacific Railway that surely it involves no condemnation of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract or original construction, to point out where the company is failing to live up to this contract. Surely the fact that a )nan recognizes or points out the unwise features of the contract of 1881 with the Canadian


James Clancy: Wrong, under the conditions that then existed.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am quite satisfied with the answer ; but the conditions that existed then did not exist for a very long time afterwards. Blake's words were admitted to be true by the Conservative party in less than ten years after the time the Canadian Pacific Railway contract was forced through this parli iment. Mr. B ake was found to have had a proper idea of the way the contract was going to work out, and of the intolerable affliction which that provision of the contract was going to be on the people of the North-west ; and in less than ten years the Conservative party were obliged to admit that Mr. Blake was right, by purchasing from the company the monopoly right which they had originally conferred upon them.


James Clancy: He only became right when the conditions changed.


Thomas Walter Scott: The Conservative leaders in 1S81 refused to believe that the conditions would be as prophesied by the Hon. Edward Blake and the other Liberal leaders ; but in less than ten years they were obliged to confess that air. Blake and his associates were absolutely right in the position they took. I say I approve of the Grand Trunk Pacific project because it does not involve any monopoly right. The Canadian Pacific Railway contract was opposed by Mi-. Blake, not because he did not favour a transcontinental railway, but because of the abominable terms that were attached to the land grant.


Air. TAYLOR.: Read his speech.


Thomas Walter Scott: I have read his speech very carefully, and if my hon. friend would read it, he would be obliged to admit that what I am saying is true ; and that shortly after the contract was forced through this parliament the men who forced it through were obliged to admit that practically everything that Air. Blake and his associates contended was true. I would ask my hon. friends opposite if they are not ready to admit that Mr. Blake was justi-

fled in condemning those features of the contract which were attached to the land grant ; and if the hon. leader of the opposition were here, I would ask him if he did not himself two years ago condemn the tax exemption feature of the land grant by proposing from his place in this House that that right of the company should be purchased-by proposing to give several more millions to the company to buy out another bad feature of. that contract, another right which should never have been given to the company ? And did he not, when in the North-west last fall, condemn the principle of land grants, when he declared that the future North-west province must be compensated for the lands alienated for federal purposes ?
I approve of the contract before the House because there is no land grant attached to it. The Liberals condemned the Canadian Pacific Railway contract because of the provision giving the company's property in the North-west exemption from taxation for ever. I challenge the hon. member for Botkwell, or any other member of the opposition, to stand up and declare whether the Liberals were right or wrong in their opposition to this perpetual tax exemption feature. My hon. friends are now dumb. Let me tell them that one of the ablest men in their party, Premier Haul tain, of Regina, condemned that exemption in the most effective fashion, by the Rill of Rights which he submitted to the government here less than two years ago. in which he demanded the abolition of the perpetual exemption upon the property of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the North-west; and if the Conservative party approve of that they condemn themselves. They condemn the provision which they put in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract in 1891, and which every day since they have been holding up as something that ought to be worshipped.
I approve of the present government's plan for a new transcontinental line because it embodies no tax exemption features, but will leave this great property which is to be created to bear its fair share of local taxation, together with all other institutions and properties in the country, towards maintaining progressive and modern government as regards education, public improvements, and so forth.
Blake and the Liberals condemned the Canadian Pacific Railway contract not because they opposed the building of the road. _ The Liberal government, from 1874 to 1878, had most irrevocably committed the whole Liberal party to the proposition of a transcontinental railway, and to the idea that the Pacific province must be connected witli the provinces in the east. The hon. member shakes his head ; but if he reads accurately the history of the last twenty-five years, he will know that I am speaking the truth when I say that the government of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, from 3194
1874 to 1878, did commit the Liberals of Canada to the proposition that the Pacific province must.be connected by a railroad at the earliest possible date with the provinces to the east.


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that the Liberal party, as led by Mr. Blake and Mr. Mackenzie, refused to carry out the bargain with British Columbia, even to construct a transcontinental railway within ten years ?


Thomas Walter Scott: It was, of course, a question of time. They may have taken the position that they would be able to do it only within a certain time. But what I say is absolutely correct, as the hon. gentleman well knows, that the Liberal party were committed to the idea that the road must be constructed. As an hon. friend reminds me, it was the Liberal party which entered on the work of making the surveys for the road. The route was practically all surveyed, and the line which the intelligent railway builders of the present day are following is the line which was surveyed by the surveyors of the Mackenzie government. Though I live on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I am compelled to admit that it was located in the wrong place, and that it would have been very much better for the Dominion of .Cana da if it had been located in accordance with the surveys carried out by the Mackenzie government. The chances are that the success which we are having in the North-west to-day would have been achieved, to some extent at least, twelve or fifteen years ago if the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie had not been defeated in 1878 ; and the Canadian Pacific Railway would have been constructed and operated as a government undertaking. He already, when he went out of office, had important sections of the railway under construction. Why, Conservatives have gone up and down through the length and breadth of this country for years telling about the mistaken idea of Mr. Mackenzie. They did not take the position that he was not going to connect the Atlantic and the Pacific ; _ but what they said was that he had a mistaken idea about using the water-stretches. They talked about his senseless idea of water-stretches in combination with railways, but they are coming along very strongly towards that idea during this debate. Let me repeat that the contract of the Canadian Pacific Railway was not opposed by the Liberals on account of the original cost so much as on account of the monopoly and other bad features of the contract, which even the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) dare not get up and commend. I again ask the question if Mr. Blake was wrong in his opposition to that contract ? The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) read to this House amendments proposed by Mr. Blake and his associates in 1881, when the Canadian Pacific Railway

contract was being forced through this House. My hon. friend read resolution after resolution proposed in amendment to the contract. Will any lion, member opposite dare get up and say that, in a single particular, the Liberals were wrong l The Liberals in 1881 were twenty-three years in advance of the Conservatives of that day, just as they are to-day twenty-three years in advance of the opposition.


James Clancy: 1 want to ask the hoi:, gentleman if it is not within his recollection that the Liberal leader denounced in the strongest terms the building of a railway to the Pacific coast ? Did not Mr. Blake declare, and in this he was cheered by every gentleman who supported him, that it would never pay for the axle grease V


Thomas Walter Scott: It is perfectly true that Mr. Blake, in the heat of debate, in the heat of his opposition to the monopolistic and other obnoxious features of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, did allow himself to go a little too far, and made the remark that the road would never pay for its axle grease, and the Liberals ever since have been sorry for it, and there are many Conservatives who for twenty-five years following this will be sorry for the disparaging remarks they have permitted themselves to make and for which they have not the justification or provocation which Mr. Blake-had.


Mr. BARKER.: The hon. gentleman cannot name one Conservative who made disparaging remarks concerning this country.


Thomas Walter Scott: The bon. member for Hamilton himself told the House that there was a big section up there which did not have a tree as big as a man's thigh.


Samuel Barker: I never referred in that manner to the matter which Mr. Blake was discussing from first to last. I was discussing a different section altogether.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. gentleman has entirely misapprehended what 1 said. 1 said that Mr. Blake did go too far in his disparaging remarks, and the Liberals have regretted it ever since; and I repeat that my hon. friends will be sorry, just as the Liberals have been, for the disparaging remarks they have made; and in that connection I point to my hon. friend's remark that there is a big section of country north of here, in New Ontario or in New Quebec, where you could not find a tree bigger than a man's thigh.


Samuel Barker: I said nothing of the kind. I said that the reports referred to by hon. gentlemen on the opposite side disclosed only the fact that there were certain timbers on the opposite side of the height of land; and they had no evidence to the contrary.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. gentleman should thank me very sincerely for calling his atten-


Thomas Walter Scott: tion to this remark and thus enabling him to make this explanation, because the impression has gone among the people that he said that the section of country through which it is proposed to run this road does not contain timber larger than a man's thigh. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and many others made equally disparaging remarks regarding New Ontario and New Quebec; and I am perfectly satisfied that in the years to come they will regret the disparaging remarks which they made and for which they had not the justification that Mr. Blake had for making the statement which Liberals have since regretted. But respecting the position taken by the Liberal party, as shown by the amendments they offered to the Canadian Pacific Railway Bill, is there an hon. gentleman on the other side who dare get up and say that the Liberals were wrong in any particular V Am I not right therefore in declaring that the Conservative party themselves condemn the Canadian Pacific Railway contract ? There is not a man among them who would get up and argue that the ten per cent monopoly clause given the Canadian Pacific Railway was a wise and judicious provision. If he should attempt to argue anything of the kind, he would be looked upon as a violent lunatic. But I have here now the exact words which the hon. member for Hamilton did use regarding a section of the country through which this proposed line is to pass. On page 8611 of the revised ' Hansard,' he is reported to have said :
There will be an enormous amount of the money, which the Finance Minister has not taken into his calculation with his actuary, to spend year after year in that way, while the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in the west is enjoying the fat of the land, and the government is struggling to finish its 1,800 miles of railway through the muskegs.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman say that there are no muskegs ?


Mr. WADE.: You said 1,800 miles of muskegs.


Samuel Barker: Tlie Minister of the Interior is authority for four hundred of them at any rate.


Thomas Walter Scott: I approve of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway contract because it does not contain any monopoly provisions; and I say again that another supremely important matter is that the government and parliament are going, for all time, to have absolute control over the rates. Have hon. gentlemen any idea of what the rate monopoly of the Canadian Pacific Railway has cost the country? I would not venture myself to make an estimate of the weight of the burden, but we can get an Inkling of it from the amount of saving effected by the contract put through this House three or four years ago for the building of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, by which a re-
\

Auction of three cents per hundred pounds was purchased from the Canadian Pacific Railway on wheat carriage from the prairies to Fort William. Last year the wheat production of Manitoba and the North-west amounted to 64,500,000 bushels, and if the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) who is quick in calculation will apply three cents per hundred pounds to that total, he will find that in one year alone the reduction in the freight on wheat amounted to no less than 81,161,000. There was that saving to the farmers of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories last year alone through that single feature of the Crow's Nest contract. That enables us to form some faint idea of the amount the people of Manitoba and the North-west have been robbed of year after year. Because, if it had not been for the rate monopoly this reduction would have been affected without any concession or purchase, and we should not have been obliged to pay the Canadian Pacific Railway $11,000 a mile to build the Crow's Nest line.


James Clancy: The Canadian Pacific Railway say they made that reduction voluntarily.


Thomas Walter Scott: Well, we had been waiting a number of years before that to get a voluntary reduction, and we never got it until after this Crow's Nest arrangement. And, notwithstanding that the Canadian Northern last year carried wheat from Winnipeg to Port Arthur at 12 cents per hundred, the Canadian Pacific Railway was still hauling at the same old rate of 14 cents per hundred. They did not appear to be anxious to give a further voluntary reduction. I approve of the government's proposal because it gives no rate monopoly, but reserves an absolute control of rates to the people through the government and through the board of railway commissioners this year being constituted.
The more I study the contract in the light of the general railway law and in the light of the powers conferred on the board of commissioners, the stronger becomes my approval.
This contract marks not only the end of the day of cash gifts to corporations and of land grants, tax exemptions, and rate monopolies ; it marks the end of the day not only of these iniquitous features of Canadian railway legislation of the past which are responsible for the extreme public dissatisfaction and extreme public sentiment which exists in this country on the transportation question, but it marks as well the end of the day of watered stock and exaggerated debts by which our roads have been burdened.-exaggerated debts on which the patrons of the roads are obliged to pay excessive tolls to meet the interest.
Every transaction of this Grand Trunk Pacific Company with regard to its construction, stock Issues and bond issues will be subject to public inspection, and the
people of Canada through its board of railway commissioners will be in a position to fix only such rates and tolls on the road-as are fair and just in view of the honest, legitimate amounts expended in construction and equipment. I have spoken at some length of the Canadian Pacific Railway transaction made by the Conservative government over twenty years ago. But that is not the only effort made by the Conservative government to meet the railway transportation needs of the people of the west particularly. We have to thank the Conservative government for the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, for the bad features of it, which one by one, the Liberal government is managing to get out of the way, to put behind us, by purchase, or in some other way. We have also to thank the Conservative government for a most burdensome elevator monopoly under which, for many years, the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west Territories have suffered very greviously. And, only now after the Liberal party has been in power for seven years, and after careful and earnest attention has been given to that subject by this parliament year after year for the last seven years, we may hope that we are arriving at the end of the elevator monopoly, which, with the sanction of the Conservative government, the Canadian Pacific Railway was permitted to foist upon the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. There are also two or three other notable railway contracts, features of the railway legislation for which the people of Manitoba and the North-west have to thank the Conservative party. For instance, there is the Calgary and Edmonton road and there is the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan. I will go briefly into the history of these concerns, for I have no doubt it will be of interest to the House to see how these questions were dealt with by the hon. gentlemen opposite, these gentlemen who tell us that if the Liberals are allowed to put through a railway contract the country will be brought to ruin, for they, the Conservatives, are the only people who can successfully deal with railway corporations. The Qu'Appelle. Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway is a line that runs from Regina to Prince Albert, about 250 miles. Its paid up stock amounted to $201,000. The road was bonded for- $3,809,140. So the total debt resting on that railway is $4,010,140. I may remark that the bond issue bears interest at the rate of 6 per cent, and the patrons of that road have to pay freight rates that will yield a dividend of 6. per cent on the bonds. I would ask hon. gentlemen to look up the records in the blue-books to see what this road cost. If they do so they will see that according to the returns published year after year in the report of the Department of Railways and Canals, the total cost of the road was $2,539,600. Therefore, there is loft in some-

body's bands an amount of $1,470,540, over and above the cost of the road. But that is not the whole story. Besides being enabled to get more money out of the sale of the bonds than the road cost, this company was given by a kind Conservative government a land grant of 1,619,200 acres. X say that that land is worth $2 an acre, and I say it for this reason-that about a year ago the company sold the land at $2 an acre to a company of American land dealers. So, the land was worth to the promoters of this road no less' than $3,238,400.


James Clancy: Is not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) aware that that company refused to take the lands allotted ?


Thomas Walter Scott: No, I am not aware of that. I am aware that for many years the railway company hung off taking the land that was allotted to them, but about a year ago they made a deal with a company of American land speculators, known as the Saskatchewan Valley Laud Company, and sold the land at. the rate of $2 an acre. I understand that they sold practically the whole of the land grant at that rate, and the company of American speculators have not refused, so far as I know


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) had been in his seat at the time he would have heard the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) state in answer to questions asked, that this company had refused to take a considerable portion of the lands allotted to the company.


Thomas Walter Scott: I was in the House when the Minister of the Interior was answering questions with respect to this matter, but this is the first time I have heard it said that that company refused to take the land.


James Clancy: And I understand that the lands were sold for $1 per acre, not $2.


Thomas Walter Scott: I beg the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Clancy) pardon. The lands were sold by the railway company to the company of American speculators at $2 an acre, which would mean that the land grant was worth to the company $3,238,400. But it is not very germane to the question whether these lands were sold at $1.25, or $1.50 or $2.


Samuel Barker: If it is not germane to the question, why does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) dwell upon it ?


Thomas Walter Scott: The point was raised by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy).
I say that it is no answer to say that these lands were not sold for $2 per acre. The contract made by the Conservative government witii this railway company was to give them this area of land fairly fit for settlement ; and I do not need to say to this House or to anybody in this country who has any knowledge of affairs in the North-west, that there is not an acre of land in the North- I


Thomas Walter Scott: west fairly fit for settlement that is not worth $5, and that will not sell for $5 to-day. In placing a value of $2 an acre on that land, I am making a very conservative estimate. But even this was not all. In addition to these things the company was given a subsidy of $80,000 a year for twenty years, being another little matter of $1,600,000. This added to the land grant and to the amount of bonds and stock over the cost of the road, makes a total of no less than $6,308,940, which somebody obtained without earning it, through the legislation of the hon. gentlemen opposite, who have now the effrontery, the hardihood, to come forward and ask the people of this country for their confidence that they may put through other railway legislation. That is only one of them. I may mention also the Calgary and Edmonton. That was stocked at $1,000,000, and it was bonded for $5.474,513, making a total debt on the road of $6,474,513. By the return which appears in the report of the Railways and Canals Department, the total cost of that road was only $3,743,562. Therefore there is an amount in somebody's pocket of $2,730,951. That company also got a land grant.


Samuel Barker: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? If this six million odd dollars has been issued as the capital of this company at a cost of $3,000,000, what does he say to the $25,000,000 the government propose to add to the capital of the Grand Trunk Pacific, without any provision that they shall pay for it ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I have made a note respecting that matter, but I would like to be permitted to make my own speech and to deal with' these matters in their proper order. My hon. friend from Hamilton will not think I am discourteous in objecting to having my attention drawn away from the subject with which I am dealing at the present moment. The cost, as I have stated, was $3,743,562, and the total debt on the line is $6,474,513. The land grant given to this company amounted to 1,888,000 acres.
I put the valuation of this land at $3 per acre. I am informed by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) who knows the circumstances, that that company has not sold an acre of land at less than $3. They have a number of town sites in the area that sell for a great deal more than $3. They were selling land last year at $4 and this year for $5, and even more. However,
1 put the value at $3 an acre, yielding a sum of $5,664,000 as the value of the land grant. This company also got a cash subsidy of $S0.000 a year for twenty years, making $1,600,000. Therefore the total profit on this road-profit is not the right word, l am at a loss to describe it.


Mr. GALLIHER.: The swag.


Thomas Walter Scott: Yes, the total swag on this road was $9,994,951. Add to that the am-

otr.it which they got quite improperly as profits by the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway, and we have $16,303,891. Even then the roads did not serve their purpose. The idea of these roads was to open up the Saskatchewan valley. Hon. gentlemen opposite suggest the same idea with regard to northern Ontario. They say it will serve the purpose better if lines of railway should run from the south to the north, on the same principle as in this case. The result was that the Saskatchewan valley was only tapped in two places, and there has been practically no development, and will not be until a lateral line is built from east to west in that country. Before the Prince Albert line was built, I am informed, the town of Prince Albert went to the expense of sending three delegates to Ottawa to protest against action which was bound to result in blocking the extension of the Manitoba and North-western, which was projected from Portage la Prairie, in a north-westerly direction to the town of Prince Albert. Their prayer was not listened to. The government spoke the word to the then Conservative member for Saskatchewan, and he informed the delegates that their mission was useless, and they went back home. The result was that the lines were built from Regina to Prince Albert and from Calgary to Edmonton for the purpose of opening up the Saskatchewan valley, and the Manitoba and the Northwestern was hung up for years, and was never extended until this year. It was built to Yorkton at that time, and it has remained at Yorkton until last year.	.
.Mr. CLANCY. What has all this to do with the merits of the two propositions now before the House ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Is it not perfectly fair, Mr. Speaker, that in considering this proposition we should compare it with the legislation placed upon the Statute-books of this country in years gone by by the Conservative government '? Now, as I pointed out, on these two little deals, these two little railways, comprising about 550 miles, somebody was allowed to get away improperly with $16,303,891. I am reminded that my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), one evening since the commencement of this session, expressed some curiosity to see that individual who is frequently termed a grafter. My hon. friend from West Elgin will remember that one evening here he read a letter from some one in Vancouver, I think, and said he would like to see one of these individuals spoken of as grafters. It seems to me that if we could put our finger on the gentleman who got away with these $16,000,000 we would find a grafter under our finger. Now, I would advise my hon. friend from West Elgin to cast his eye down to the seat just four rows in front of him, t >
the seat of the hon. junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) and he will see -or he would see, because the seat is vacant
at the present moment-he would see, if the seat was filled by its member, one of these grafters who, by himself and his associates, got away with this sum of $16,000,000 odd dolla rs.


Mr. KEMP.: I rise to a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. gentleman to call another hon. gentleman in this House a grafter ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, before you give your ruling, 1 make haste to withdraw the appellation, and I leave it to my hon. friend to apply the term that he thinks will best suit any man who, with his associates in the railway business, manages to get away with a matter of $16,000,000.


Samuel Barker: Quite apart from the rules of the House, it strikes me that, instead of insinuating charges that are very grave indeed if true, the hon. member should come out straight and fair and charge my hon. friend frcm West Toronto with what he insinuates.


Thomas Walter Scott: I cannot imagine that there is any ambiguity in my words. I have stated here that somebody, some persons in this country, got into their pockets, through Conservative ' railway legislation, a matter of $16,303,891, which would not have got into their pockets under proper legislation.


Samuel Barker: What has that to do with the particular gentleman he picked out ? He might as well refer to me or any other gentleman.


Thomas Walter Scott: I will make a further statement, and make it upon my responsibility, that the hon. member for West Toronto- I do not want to make any mistake, I will name him-Mr. Osier, is one of the gentlemen who is implicated in this matter. I do not blame him at all. Individuals in this country are not expected to work for their health. When they go into railway enterprises they are going to make all the money they can out of them. I am not throwing any aspersion upon the hon. member for West Toronto ; but I am calling to the attention of this parliament and the people of this country the kind of legislation that the Conservative party put through when they were in power, and the kind cf legislation which enabled their friends to get away with an amount of money like this. They were perfectly right to take the money when they got the opportunity. But I am pleased to say that in the legislation brought down by the Liberal government no person is going to have an opportunity to make away illegally or improperly wdtli any amount of money, or legally and properly with any illegitimate amounts of money.
Now. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I am exceeding the time which I had allotted myself. But these are two notorious deals that I have mentioned, and I venture to say

that no lion, gentleman opposite will defend them, or endeavour to defend, further than I myself have done, the position of the hon. member for West Toronto in relation to those deals.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if, speaking from his place in this House, he is prepared! to say that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), to whom he has referred to-night, profited to the extent of one cent by the transaction, whether it be good or bad?


Thomas Walter Scott: Really, I am not prepared to say what final disposition was made of the money, but I am stating these things as facts. Let the hon. gentleman look at the returns in the Department of Railways and Canals and see whether the statement I have made is not true. I say on my responsibility as a member of this House, without taking back a word of what 1 have said, that the hon. member for West Toronto is one of the persons who was implicated in this matter, that he is one of the gentlemen who profited by the building of these roads, as a result of notoriously indefensible legislation passed through this parliament by a Conservative majority when the Conservative party was in power in this country. But I was going to say that these deals were little worse than the main deal. The total cash aids granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway by the Conservative government, as they were summed up by Mr. Blake in 1S81, amounted to $104,310,000, to which there must be added 25,000,000 acres of land, making, at $2 an acre, a very low estimate-the Canadian Pacific Railway are not selling any land at $2 an acre now- $154,310,000. The cost of constructing the whole line, according to the company's own estimate, was $83,500,000, and the cost of tlie equipment $8,000,000, making a total of $91,500,000, and the whole road, which became the absolute property of the company, was made over as an absolute gift. Then, there were the monopoly provision, the tax exemption, the right of free importation of materials, and the ten per cent clause, securing the company against being compelled to grant reductions in freight rates. I have occupied so much time, with the assistance of my hon. friends opposite, who appear to be very uneasy when these odd deals are being looked into, that I am afraidi that I wiW not have time to go into some of the other aspects of this railway question that I wish to deal with. I vTas really amazed to hear any hon. member of this House take the position that there was no urgent call for a new transcontinental railway. That position, I am sorry to say, was taken by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), and that position was also taken by several hon. gentlemen opposite who come from the province of Ontario. I particularly have in mind the hon. member for Peel fMr. Blain), who put the question to me : Mr. SCOTT.
Have the manufacturers of this country any trouble in getting their goods to Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia ?
I answered :
Yes.	.
And the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) replied :
Why, such a statement is unworthy of the hon. gentleman or of any representative of the west.
I have simply to say that my statement is absolutely and categorically true. There is not a manufacturer doing business west of Lake Superior who has not had trouble during tlie i>ast two years in getting his goods into that country. Sir William Yan Horne has been quoted as being opposed to the idea of a transcontinental railway. I have here the report of an interview published in the New York ' Post ' in November last, in which Sir William Yan Horne is quoted as saying :
The position of the Canadian Pacific Railway Is absolutely unassailable. For that reason, it is our policy never to oppose anything. The Trans-Canadian road has started with better prospects than the Canadian Pacific had once. When the Northern Pacific road was built, everybody thought it was way up north beyond nowhere. Then the Great Northern was built, and people promptly forgot thinking of the Northern Pacific as far north. Then came the Canadian Pacific, and that seemed to run through the Arctic regions. We would hail with delight a parallel route from Atlantic to Pacific to help us develop the country. There Is enough of it up there for us all.
I am sorry that Sir William Van Horne's delight seems to have been short-lived. Just as soon as a practical scheme is put Before this country, he comes out in an interview which is no doubt published with the intention of throwing cold water on the project. Where have my hon. friends been who say that there is no call for another transcontinental railway? Have they been asleep? Surely they cannot have heard of the resolution passed by the Winnipeg Board of Trade in December last, which I myself placed on record in this parliament in May, and which I believe the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) again placed on record, and in which they say that the farmers and entire community were suffering enormous losses, and that individuals were experiencing personal hardship and suffering, not to speak of long-continued inconvenience, and which called upon parliament to take immediate action to remove the grievous disabilities under which the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories labour, and prevent a recurrence of sueh conditions.


Albert Edward Kemp: That does not refer to a transcontinental railway. That refers to the congestion of freight on the railways that exist.


Thomas Walter Scott: If my hon. friend thinks that the meaning of the resolution is not

ns I have said, that we require more railway facilities than can be got from tlite Canadian Pacific Railway, he is mistaken. The Winnipeg Board of Trade resolution furnishes the very strongest reasons why a new railway should be provided at the earliest possible moment.


Albert Edward Kemp: The railway officials want more rolling stock.


Thomas Walter Scott: When the right lion. Prime Minister said in his magnificent and patriotic presentation of this scheme before parliament and country, that this was not the time for deliberation, but for action, he voiced the sentiment of every man, woman and child in Manitoba and the North-west Territories who does not allow himself to be influenced by the partisan sentiment which I am afraid the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Kemp) sometimes permits himself to be blinded by. Every man, woman and child between Lake Superior and the Rocky mountains who has to depend on the service given by the Canadian Pacific Railway agrees with the right lion, gentleman in that sentiment. Do lion, gentlemen ever stop to reflect upon the meaning of the terms of the Winnipeg Board of Trade resolution, upon such terms as enormous losses, personal hardships and personal sufferings ? Do they ever reflect what is the meaning of these terms ? Is it not apparent to hon. gentlemen opposite that the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories are calling upon parliament to relieve them from the disadvantage under which they are suffering from the lack of railway facilities ?


William Rees Brock: How will the road from Quebec to Moncton relieve the congestion the hon. gentleman is speaking of ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I will tell the hon. gentleman later on.


William Rees Brock: Answer that at once.


Thomas Walter Scott: I will tell the hon. gentleman later on. but in good time. I told the House in May last that the half million people out there were in 1902 robbed of not less than $10,000,000 by reason of the lack of railway facilities, $5,000,000 on wheat and fully $5,000,000 otherwise. My statement at that time was challenged by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who said that the statement as to the depression in the price of wheat was a ridiculous statement. I said that T believed the average depression in the price of wheat was not less than ten cents a bushel. If lie were here I would bo pleased to quote to him an authority whom he respects very highly, the authority of SirThos. Sliauglinessy, who, writing to the mayor of Wolseley in December last, said that:
That there has been a demand for ears beyond our ability to supply them, and advantage has been taken of this fact by grain buyers to squeeze prices down, cannot be denied.
Hon. gentlemen will recollect that I said at an earlier stage of my remarks that the officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway themselves admitted their failure to give an efficient service to the people of this country. That is the statement of Sir Thomas Sliauglinessy. The secretary of the Grain Dealers' Association came out in a long letter in reply to the statement of Sir Thomas Sliauglinessy. I.refer to Mr. If. O. Fowler, of Winnipeg, who said :
Tho plain fact of the matter is that the inability of the railway companies to handle the crop has cost this country seven and thirty-five one hundredth cents per bushel.
That is between seven and eight cents per bushel on the enormous crop of Manitoba and the North-west Territories of last year; our 64,500,000 bushels of wheat were depressed in -price by reason of the lack of facilities to no less an extent than between seven and eight cents per bushel. That particular statement is entirely corroborated by the reports of Mr. Castle, the warehouse commissioner, which lion, gentlemen will find on file in the Department of Trade and Commerce. Mr. Castle fully corroborates the statement made by Mr. Fowler, that on account of the congestion in traffic owing to the lack of railway facilities there was a depression in the price of wheat that averaged from seven to eight cents per bushel. I believe that these figures are below the mark. I have personal knowledge of one case in which the difference between the street price and the track price, that is, the difference between the price which a farmer was offered at the elevator and the price which he got when he had a chance of shipping his grain down to Fort William was 17 cents per bushel. I believe that ten cents is not too high an estimate to place on the amount per bushel which the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west Territories lost last season by reason of the lack of railway facilities. Is it any wonder that those people are calling for relief, calling for new lines of railway? Were my hon. friends asleep when I read here on the 5th of May a memorial passed by the North-west Assembly, 35 gentlemen representing all parts of the North-west Territories, who adopted and sent down to the Governor General in Council a resolution dealing with the subject ? In that resolution they said :
The practically continuous freight congestion of the last two years has abundantly demonstrated that the Canadian Pacific "Railway has absolutely failed to provide adequate facilities, and that.
The prospective increase in the volume of traffic will further tend to congest traffic between the North-west Teritories and the eastern provinces and unless it is held desirable to divert part of such traffic through foreign channels, adequate facilities for its transportation must be immediately provided.
My hon. friends must have knowledge of the fact that since the beginning of this session the farmers of Moosejaw went to

tlie trouble and expense of sending a delegate down to Ottawa with a memorial to present to the government and the members of this House. That delegate was Mr. O. B. Fish, and some of my hon. friends must remember his visit which I think was in May. One clause in the memorial which he carried was this :
Every assistance and encouragement should be given to any system of transportation that would relieve or meet the needs of the country.
This memorial was signed in behalf of the whole community of Moosejaw district farmers by S. K. Itathwell, William Watson, and E. N. Hopkins, I may say, three strong adherents of the hon. gentlemen opposite.
My opinion is that this project has been brought on just a year too late. I know that last year when 1 went home to my constituents I had to make an apology because there was no provision for relief to tile railway situation. The only encouragement I had to give was the promise of the Prime Minister during the last days of the session that the subject would be taken up and praqtically dealt with during this session. The time for delay has in my opinion long gone by. It has gone by a year ago. We have been told since the project was brought down that ' Senator Cox could not wait.' I do not suppose that Senator Cox had anything more to do with framing or bringing tills proposition before tlie parliament of this country than had a thousand other individuals, but if lie had, if lie is to bo credited with this action, then the Winnipeg Board of Trade would say : All honour to Senator Cox. And the western commercial travellers who last year were brought to tlie verge of desperation on account of the total disorganization of the passenger service, would say : All honour to Senator Cox. 1 believe that every man woman and child between Lake Superior and tlie Rocky mountains not blinded by partisanship would say : God bless Senator Cox, if lie is responsible for the bringing down of this proposition. It is a proposition which, as 1 said. John Hawkes, a good friend and supporter of lion, gentlemen opposite, characterizes as the best and most encouraging tiling that has ever crossed the horizon of the people of tlie prairie country. Let my hon. friends take counsel. Their appeals to the right hon. Prime Minister to wait, to wait, to wait, are very unwise. They say we ought to wait until the transportation commission brings in a report. Let me say in connection with that transportation commission that when the people of the west saw the announcement in the speech from the Throne at the beginning of the session that a commission was to he appointed they received a chili: they thought it meant the postponing for another year of the dealing with this great project, of giving relief in regard to the lack of railway facilities, i received many letters from tlie west about it and not long Mr. SCOTT.
after the commencement of the session with a number of other members from Manitoba mid tlie North-west Territories 1 waited on tlie Prime Minister in connection with it. We were satisfied with the Prime Minister's explanation that the transportation commission was intended to deal with waterways, with our canals, terminals and harbours and not with the railway question. Like every other Canadian I recognize the importance of improving and utilizing tlie canals and waterways of this country and, therefore with that explanation, we were perfectly well satisfied. Had it been otherwise, had it been that this commission was intended to deal especially with tne railway problem, the name of Sir William Van Horne which was at that time suggested in connection with the chairmanship of the commission would not have created in tlie minds of tlie people of the Northwest great confidence because of Sir William Van Home's connection with the Canadian Pacific Itailway. Otherwise Sir William Van Ilorne possesses tlie respect and confidence in a very high degree of practically i imagine tlie whole people of this country, but in any case of tlie people of Manitoba and tlie Nortli-west Territories.
I repeat that relief is wanted immediately. I have just one other quotation that I Wish to read in that connection. It is from a newspaper published in my own town which is a very strong supporter of hon. gentlemen opposite. This newspaper had an article on tlie 5th of May last which said :
It is all right for Liberals to denounce the Canadian Pacific Railway.
My hon. friend may take note of the fact that I state on my responsibility in this House that this paper was assisted in its inception by the hon. junior member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) and therefore it often finds it necessary to apologize for the deficiencies and the delinquencies of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
It is all right we suppose for Liberals to denounce tlie Canadian Pacific Railway, it is all right to denounce the Canadian Pacific Railway, but it would be a good deal more sensible and a good deal more to the point if they would get to work themselves and evolve and enforce a policy which would give relief. What we say to the Liberals is, quit denouncing the Canadian Pacific Railway and employ your energies towards getting us more railways. Talk less and do more. Unless there is something tangible in the way of a competing railway before long (we should have had it long ago) then denunciation of the Canadian Pacific Railway won't go far. The people want a new railway. What we suggest is : A policy of immediate construction of a competing railway.
Hud it not been for certain statements made on Friday night by the hon. gentleman from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) I might not have deemed it necessary to take part in this debate. I regretted to hear any hon. gentleman from the prairie country make

disparaging remarks about any portion of this Dominion of Canada. It is a very unusual thing to find any person from the great North-west attempting to belittle any oilier part of his country. The hon. gentleman devoted some time to an endeavour to prove that the country in northern Ontario and northern Quebec was of such a character that a railway could never be constructed that would-pay-he did not say tlie axle grease but that is what he meant. I felt like asking my hon. friend what he thought of his leader's proposition to build over that same territory, not a competing railway but


An hon. MEMBER.: When V


Mr. BOYD.: Probably the hon. gentleman will tell to this House before he sits down how his party proposes to make that particular portion of this road pay.


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend from East drey (Mr. Sproule) asked when.


Nathaniel Boyd: I do not care when and how.


Thomas Walter Scott: He asked when with regard to my remark that his leader proposed to build over this territory. Might I ask him when V


Thomas Simpson Sproule: if tne hon. gentleman will excuse me I did not interrupt him.


Thomas Walter Scott: Before I get through I will endeavour to tell my hon. friend when. My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) further said that the indebtedness of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would be $5(1,000 per mile as against $12,500 which he places as the indebtedness on the Canadian Northern and he asked how the new road was to compete with the Canadian Northern. 1 am not appealing for any more interruptions but it puzzled me to know where he got bis figures. How does he arrive at $50,000 a mile. I beg to point him to a paper which shows a considerable inclination to support hon. gentlemen opposite, the Toronto ' News.' This paper fixed the maximum Investment that can be put on the road at $52,000 and it points out that this is much less than the indebtedness of the great American transcontinental lines.
I think my hon. friend forgot, when he was giving these figures, that he was simply taking the total possible stock issue and bond issue that may be placed upon the road ; and nobody has any idea that that total will be reached any more than it has been in the case of the Canadian Northern. If my hon. friend inquires, he will find that it is possible for the Canadian Northern to be stocked and bonded and placed under a debt fully as great as that under which this new road can be placed. I asked a railway authority to-day if he could assist me in getting at the total amount of the bonded indebtedness and stock that might be placed on the Canadian Northern, and
he told me that was a matter which experts had been trying to find out, and that it would be impossible for anybody to find out. An option was taken upon 350 miles of that road-the old Northern Pacific portion- by the Manitoba government for $7,000,000, which would represent $20,000 a mile ; the same government two years ago guaranteed the Canadian Northern to the extent of $17,000,000, which would amount to over $14,000 a mile ; and 290 miles of the Canadian Northern west of Fort William were assisted by the people and the parliaments of this country by bond guarantees, land grants, and cash aids to the extent of no less than $30,400 a mile.
But my hon. friend seems to have changed his mind considerably since last year. He asked in his speech on Friday night, why this hurry and anxiety ? After the government had been sitting here for seven years, he asked, what had occurred to make tills railway necessary ? He re-echoed liis leader by saying, why not deliberate ? Why this haste ? I think I could quote from last year's ' Hansard,' speeches of thirty of forty members of the opposition, urging upon the government the necessity of immediate action in this particular. The hon. member for North Perth (Mr. MacLaren) last year said :
We have been for years talking, talking, talking. We have been doing nothing but talking, taking no action.
The hon. gentleman now asks, whence comes the call for action, for building this road ? I say it comes from the hon. gentlemen themselves, and from their leader- from scores of them who in this House last year and this year urged the necessity of immediate action, claiming that we were a year late already. So we are. But let me read what these hon. gentlemen said.


Albert Edward Kemp: Did the hon. member for Perth refer to a transcontinental railway in that speech ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I think not, but he was talking about the transportation question. He complained that we were doing nothing but talking ; and now my hon. friends want us to talk still further.


Albert Edward Kemp: He referred to the canals.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) last year dealt with this matter a couple of times. As reported at page 4557 of ' Hansard,' he urged the government to prepare for the great emergency :
Prepare for the great emergency. Hon. members speak of the great crop of 1901, but I Have known three or four better crops in Manitoba. Last year's average was twenty-two bushels. I have myself grown twenty-eight bushels and we have had a better average in two or three previous years. Wo need not look to last year as anything exceptional. We are liable to have a greater crop at any time, and it behooves the government to prepare for a much larger export

On page 4392 my hon. friend is again reported as saying :
This is the burning question to-day. I said to Mr. Leonard : ' Provided there are no more railways opened up and we take merely the natural increase of the produce that will come from the people now in the country, to say nothing of the people now coming in, what are you going to do with the produce of that country six years from to-day '? His remark was ;
' Mr. Boyd, ten railroads will not take the produce of this country out in double the time you at present seem to think should he occupied.'
My hon. friend went on to say :
I say it will require four railroads between Fort William and Winnipeg, and two or possibly three more east of there to serve the trade that is looming up and is coming very soon in that country. What are you doing to meet the emergency ?
Tlie right hen. leader of the government lias brought down a measure to meet the emergency, and my hon. friend now turns round and takes the opposite position, and says we do not require any more lines to Fort William or east of Fort William. My hon. friend also said the other night that the congestion was now a thing of the past. Last year there was congestion, but now there is no serious congestion. Let me read a statement made by a coincidence, on the very day this debate commenced, the 10th of August,' by a gentleman whose authority my hon. friend will accept-Mr. J. T. Gordon, of the firm of Gordon and Ironsides, the well-known cattle exporters, and who is also a Conservative member of the Manitoba Legislature. Returning to Winnipeg from a western trip, he was interviewed by the newspapers there, and this is what he said :
We have shipped two trains so far this season. The first made a very satisfactory trip. I was present at Claresholme when the second train was loaded, and the run from that point to Moose Jaw occupied twenty-six hours. Owing to the cattle being so long on the road we were obliged to unload at Moose Jaw and the unloading and reloading occupied five hours. The accommodation at that point is very inadequate for the handling of range steers, as only two cars can be unloaded at a time. The cattle were reloaded at 23 o'clock Friday and at 20.30 o'clock Saturday had not reached the Winnipeg yards. If the Canadian Pacific Railway continues to handle western cattle in this manner we shall simply do as we did last year, drive the cattle south and ship over other roads. The Canadian Pacific Railway have appointed a live stock agent to look after these shipments and he is doing all in his power to give the cattle trains good transit, but he can only go so far. When despatchers and superintendents do not handle the stock in the manner suggested by the live stock agent and the shipper, then the shipper is surely justified in protecting his interest by going elsewhere. Our shipments over the Great Northern last year were very satisfactory. Instead of getting a 16 to 18 mile an hour run, as we are now getting from, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Great Northern gave a run of 28 to 30 miles an hour.
'Does it cost any more to drive to the American roads ?'


Thomas Walter Scott: 'No. it will not cost any more, but instead will he a great saving ; _as it makes an enormous difference in the shrinkage when cattle are carried 28 to 30 miles an hour, instead of only 16 or IS. We can run the cattle across the line in bands of 1,500 or 2,000.'
I think the hon. gentleman will accept that as a satisfactory statement to the effect that the congestion is not entirely a thing of the past.	.
My hon. friend also said that if the government would only submit this matter to the people, and the people would endorse the government and the proposition, he and his friends would give it no further opposition. Except for the delay which has been too great already it might be worth while to take the hon. gentleman at his word. But when we look at the history of the past, I do not see why we should have any confidence in a statement of that kind. What occurred in the case of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway ? Every member of the opposition approved of the deal of the government with regard to that road, and the government went before the people, and the people endorsed it in the strongest fashion. But notwithstanding the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite supported it in this House, they still go through the country asserting that it was a bad deal.
With regard to the route proposed for the Grand Trunk Pacific, 1 have very little to say; I am willing to accept the evidence of Sir Sandford Fleming, the reports of the surveyors which have been quoted, and the evidence of such men as the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Mackie), who spoke from his personal knowledge after having travelled over hundreds of miles of that country. The evidence of these men satisfies me of the feasibility of the route. Mr. Speaker, the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway was found to be a more difficult thing than even was anticipated when the contract was put through ; but I will venture the statement that the building of this new road will be a very much less difficult thing than many hon. members on both sides of the House now think.
The north shore of Lake Superior for hundreds of miles is the most difficult country on the North American continent for railway building. The very worst possible route was chosen for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I venture to say that that chosen for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be found a much easier proposition. Here let me remark that the west is not the section of the country chiefly interested in this matter. The east is just as much interested. Nearly twenty years ago Sir John Macdonald remarked that you cannot check Manitoba, and that remark is just as applicable to-day to the whole of the country west of Lake Superior as it was to Manitoba then. Even if parliament should fail to build this road, hon. I gentlemen must not think that the traffic of

the country is going to be choked and that it will not find some other way out. Mr.* James Hill stands ready to-day to tap our western country with his Great Northern system at any point. This very session four charters have been granted from points in the territories running down to the boundary, and I am in a position to say to this House that Mr. Hill is ready to meet every one of these roads just as scon as it is built. !So that if this parliament should fail to do its duty towards the Northwest, in a very few years, possibly in a few months, the people of the North-west would get connection with the Great Northern Railway and the Northern Pacific.
As to the plan of construction, there were three alternatives before parliament and the people. First, to extend the government system ; second, to take no action and let private enterprise look after the matter ; and the third, to make a plan in conjunction with private enterprise and give the scheme a measure of public aid. The first plan, which involves tlie principle of government ownership and operation, *would have been the choice of the people of Manitoba and the territories. As to the second, it would have been in the last degree unfortunate for the west. Private enterprise could stand it, but the country could not. It would mean that the west would remain for ever in the grasp of the Canadian Pacific Railway, except for what relief it could obtain from American roads. As regards the third suggestion, as far as the people of the west are concerned, if they are not able to secure the adoption of the principle of government ownership and operation, the next best is a plan such as that proposed by the government. If we are not to have a government road, in my opinion, no sensible, patriotic Canadian can refuse to assent to a policy of public aid, because the alternatives are : On the one hand, continued progress and prosperity for every section of Canada anti every Canadian ; and on the other hand, an early check to the development now being witnessed, immigration discouraged and stopped, and some people now in and now going into the North-west Territories again on the road back to the States.
On the one hand, you will have continued development year by year of trade returns, exports and imports ; or, on the other hand, a return to the state of affairs of years gone by, when Canada's trade, foreign and domestic, was practically at a standstill. You will further have, on the one hand, a large annual increase of Canada's population, with the consequent annual reduction of the per capita amount of the national debt and lessening of the burden of taxation upon our present population; or, on the other hand, a return to a period when the number of our population was standing still year after year, with a national debt constantly increasing, and the burden of
debt constantly becoming heavier upon every taxpayer.
So that, while our western people would undoubtedly prefer government ownership and operation throughout, they are prepared to support enthusiastically the plan proposed.	.	. .
Let me quote on that point the opinion of a very warm advocate of government ownership, that of Mr. J. K. Mclnnis, the editor of an independent newspaper published in Regina, called the ' Standard.' If my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) were here, he would remember meeting Mr. Mclnnis, when the hon. gentleman was on a railway mission in the west last fall respecting the Trans-Canada. At a meeting of the board of trade in Regina, held by Mr. Talbot, Mr. Mclnnis was present and expressed hims^f in strong terms in favour of government ownership and operation, as he had been doing for many years. But shortly afterwards, when the Trans-Canada and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway project had been discussed at length in the press, he wrote an article which appeared in the Regina ' Standard,' from which I quote the following :
Gradually public interest seemed to wane. The question of subsidies arose and the public began to stand back to see what would happen. To continue in that attitude' would be a mistake. Public opinion does not seem ripe for public ownership. The North-west cannot afford to await the maturity of slow and uncertain public opinion. We need a second line and we need it now. Railways are not built in a day. We are hard up against the realities of a continuous blockade and theories cannot relieve us. It seems, therefore, that it may he impolitic and altogether unwise to set ourselves entirely against the granting of some
public aid	
He concludes the article by saying :
It does not becpme Ontario and Quebec to object to western railway aid, so long as the North-west is the feeding ground of their manufacturers and they persist that our ocean bound traffic must pass their doors.
I wish to say just a few words on the question of wheat carriage. The hon. the Minister of the Interior made a speech on the subject before the House, which, I understood, occupied about four and a-half hours, and takes up about sixty columns of * Hansard,' and every page of the speech bristles with figures, facts and arguments in support of the government proposition. That these are unanswerable is proved by the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite have not attempted to refute them, except in two or three particulars. One of the arguments of the Minister of the Interior had reference to stocker cattle, in which he said the increase of railway facilities would promote the trade already existing between the eastern provinces and the North-west. On that argument some hon. gentlemen opposite have attempted to throw ridicule. But those who know anything about the

'vest and its possibilities will appreciate the minister's argument.
If the trade to-day were to be the measure of the trade two years hence, or ten years hence, I should join. hon. gentlemen opposite in characterizing the scheme as a mad scheme. But the importation last year of 50,000 stocker cattle-25,000 from Ontario, 25,000 from Texas-encourages me to think that in years to come, and to come very soon, that trade may multiply ten times over. It can never multiply without adequate railway facilities. The 50,000 head of fat cattle that we have annually exported for two or three years past, encourages me to hope that in years to come we will be exporting 300,000 head. If the Canadian Pacific Railway was unable to take out the 42,000 head that we sent last year, do we not need the ne# road to cope with the prospective traffic ? If to-day's traffic was not to increase, I should say, build no more roads, but compel the Canadian Pacific Railway, in return for Canada's enormous sacrifices in behalf of that system, to fulfil its obligations and handle the traffic efficiently.
The only statement made by the Minister of the Interior to controvert which any attempt has been made by hon. gentlemen opposite was his statement with regard to the wheat rate between Kansas and Chicago. The h'on. member for Peel (Mr. Plain) took exception to that statement, and said that the Minister of the Interior tried to delude the House with a bargain-day quotation. The minister quoted from the Inter-State Commerce report to the effect that wheat was carried from Kansas City to Chicago for 5 cents per bushel. I have here the report. In 1901, the commission reported :
Certain other conditions at Kansas city render it difficult to maintain the published rate upon grain, and the testimony clearly showed that these rates had not been observed. Dur ing the past summer the open traffic, Kansas city to Chicago, has been 12 cents per 100 pounds, but actual rale at which wheat has been moved has been as low as five cents.
The report of 1902 said :
The only published rate in effect January,
1901,	Kansas city to Chicago, was 19 cents on wheat and 16 cents on other varieties but grain, &e., habitually moved ostensibly upon the balance of the through-rate actually upon whatever rate the shipper could obtain by private contract with the carrier. The testimony before us showed that this rate varied greatly with the'stress of competition having been in 1901 as low as 5 cents per 100 pounds, the average being perhaps 7 cents or thereabouts. On January 1, 1902, a proportional rate of 12 cents Kansas city to Chicago -was applied to all kinds of grain and grain products. July 1.
1902.	this was reduced to 7 cents on wheat and flour, being retained at 12 cents on other kinds. August, 1902, 7 cents.
Tlie Minster of the Interior was showing *at what rate wheat could actually be carried under the stress of competition, and he in- '


Thomas Walter Scott: stauced the rates that were actually Charged for moving vast quantities of wheat between Kansas city and Chicago. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) argued that the Grand Trunk Pacific could not carry grain to St. John from Winnipeg, all-rail, because the rate from Kansas city to Chicago was sometimes 14 cents. But the minister had shown that it could be carried from Kansas city to Chicago for five cents, and that if we had a road of equal standard with the roads in that country, the grain could be carried from Winnipeg to St. John at about 11 cents. And I leave it to the House to say whether the argument of the member for Peel or the argument of the Minister of the Interior was the more intelligent one. I would support this scheme even if it could be absolutely shown that Wheat could never he carried over the the road. Until last year the Canadian Pacific Railway never carried a million bushels of grain all-rail to the sea-board. Last year was the first time they undertook the carriage or wheat all-rail in any considerable quantities. Yet, the Canadian Pacific Railway lias been a going concern, a very successful concern, and has been paying very handsome dividends upon a great deal of watered stock. If the west grows and sells its wheat, an enormous quantity of other business will have to be done. I venture to say we shall be producing as much as 400,000,000 bushels of wheat in the ordinary season before many years are over. Even if not abushel of that goes out all-rail, still, the Canadian Pacific Railway and t lie Grand Trunk Pacific and probably other roads as well, will have their hands full of traffic. But I am not by any means certain that such a road would not carry grain to St. John. The Canadian Pacific Railway carried last year about 2,500,000 bushels to St. John, and if they had had the facilities they could have carried 13,000,000 or 14,000,000 bushels.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was that carried all-rail from Georgian Bay ports or all-rail from the head of the lakes.


Thomas Walter Scott: The Canadian Pacific Railway carried about 2,500,000 bushels all-rail from Winnipeg to St. John last winter, and, as I say, they could have carried five times the quantity if they had had the facilities. We had the wheat to give them but they could not handle it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman know what price they charged ?


Thomas Walter Scott: In the neighbourhood of 30 cents per hundred, I think. The Minister of the Interior showed, by quoting not merely the rates from Kansas city to Chicago, hut the rates from New York to Buffalo and the rates in force on the Canada Atlantic-actual rates, not bargain day rates, but the rates in force every day in the year-that with a road of equal stand-

ard it would probably be possible to carry .grain from Winnipeg to St. John all-rail for ten cents or eleven cents per bushel. The present rate must be about 25 cents, I should think-certainly over 20 cents. It would mean a reduction of more than one-lialf if the figures given by the Minister of the Interior are even approximately correct.


Mr. BLAIN.: Can the hon. gentleman give ns the rates to-day from Kansas city to 'Chicago ?


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. gentleman (Mr. ISlain) himself quoted the rate the other day and it was either 14 cents or 19 cents, I have forgotten which. But what does that prove? Did not the Minister of the Interior show that wheat was hauled from Kansas city to Chicago for five cents ? It does not matter whether that was a bargain-day rate *or not, millions of bushels were carried at that rate. On the Canada Atlantic, the maximum rate is 44 cents, while they have a minimum of 2| cents for a distance almost equal. The Buffalo and New York rate is even less than the Kansas city rate quoted by the minister. These are not estimates or calculations, they are facts showing what has actually been done under the stress of -competition. I take it, nobody denies that the rates quoted by the minister are the'actual rate.


Albert Edward Kemp: I think the Minister of tlie Interior said that the rate from Winnipeg to New York was about 164 cents per bushel at the present time, a Winnipeg grain *exchange man having so informed him.


Thomas Walter Scott: That is the lake and rail rate.


Albert Edward Kemp: If I remember well it was 71 cents from Winnipeg to the head of the lakes, two cents from the head of the lakes to Buffalo and seven cents from Buffalo to New York.


Thomas Walter Scott: Yes, but I am dealing with the all-rail rate. The Minister of the Interior was showing what rate the grain could be hauled at all-rail from Winnipeg to St. John. He showed that, on a basis of the rates from Kansas city to Chicago, from New York to Buffalo and from Depot Harbour to Montreal, we might reasonably expect a rate of ten cents or eleven cents allrail from Winnipeg to St. John. As I said, if the Canadian Pacific Railway had had the facilities last year they might have hauled 12,000,000 or 14,000,000 bushels of wheat all-rail to St. John. And let me say to this House that it will never be possible for the whole crop of Manitoba and the North-west to be hauled out in the same season before the close of navigation. I see a statement in the paper to-night to the effect that Mr. Castle, the warehouse commissioner, stated in reply to questions that he did not anticipate any serious congestion
this year, and that about 65 per cent of the crop would be got out before the close of the navigation. Thirty-five per cent of the crop will have to come out all-rail, or remain in storage until spring. And let me repeat an argument that has already been used here that it will pay the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west instead of putting their grain in an elevator to await the opening of navigation in the spring bearing charges of warehousing, loss of interest, &c., amounting to the total of about five cents per bushel, to add that five cents a bushel to tlie all-rail transportation rate, and to get the wheat out and get rid of it.
I have a note here respecting speeches made last year by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte). But I have occupied so much more time than I anticipated that I will not inflict this upon the House. I will only say that tlie lion, gentleman seems to have changed his idea considerably since last year, just as the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has done. Last year, the hon. member for St. .Mary's division argued that wheat could be carried all-rail in the winter time to St. John, and that this traffic was quite a feasible proposition.
Now, if I am not wearying the House too much I will deal briefly with the alternate proposition submitted by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). But, before touching upon it, let me refer very briefly to a statement by that lion, gentleman in Toronto this year as reported in the ' Mail and Empire' of March 25th last. The hon. gentleman addressed the Conservatives of ward 2. Toronto, and in the course of his address he said :
The Postmaster General, in his address ot last evening, expressed certain views which were sane and sensible. At last he has realized that this country is a great one, and can only he developed by a strong railway policy. In the past Mr. Mulock and his friends said the Canadian Pacific Railway would never pay, and that British Columbia was a mere waste of mountains. But their views are changed, for which we should be thankful.
I venture to say that is not an accurate statement. I defy anybody to quote a statement made by the Postmaster General at any time that the Canadian Pacific Railway would not pay or that British Columbia was simply a waste of mountains. Moreover, I defy hon. gentlemen opposite to quote such a statement from the lips of anybody on this side, sitting in this House today. It is true that Mr. Blake njade a statement with regard to the road not paying for its axle grease, a statement, which ns I have said, every Liberal regrets. It was made in the heat of debate.


Mr. LENNOX.: As the hon. gentleman .(Mr. Scott) has referred so often to Mr. Blake, has he forgotten, or did he ever read the speech of the Hon. Mr. Ross, which is as strong as Mr. Blake's ?
1020'


Thomas Walter Scott: Tlie Hon. Mr. Ross Is not in this House at the present time. I challenge the hon. gentleman opposite to quote any statement from the lips of a Liberal who sits in this House to-day decrying the principle of the Canadian Pacific Railway as a transcontinental project or depreciating British Columbia. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) proceeded to say :
I am glad to hear of Sir William Mulock's noble and patriotic words, I am glad to hear of his conversion, but we as Canadians must ask some questions.
Shall we take care to so guard any franchise we give that it must be exercised alone in the public interest ? Shall we _see that any rail way receiving public assistance forms part of an all-Canadian route ? But, gentlemen, the record of the government is not such as would lead us to believe that these questions will be regarded with the Importance they deserve. If assistance is given to any transcontinental company, it must be an all-Canadian line which will take Canadian products to Canadian ports, where they will be shipped abroad. (Cheers.)
The hou. gentleman at that time had no confidence in the government. Well, the position has changed at this moment. Today it is the government which has submitted a proposition of an all-Canadian route, and it is the hon. gentleman opposite whose leader has submitted a counter proposition, which is not a project for an allCanadian route but for a new line, which is longer, not only than the Government's proposed line but longer than existing lines, and which will be of no advantage at all as an all-Canadian route, nor as serving the winter ports of Canada. But the project of the leader of the opposition serves one good purpose, for it answers effectively every cardinal objection the Conservatives have been making against the proposition of the leader of the government. We were told by the hon. gentlemen opposite and by the ex-Minister of Railways that the Moncton end of the road was a piece of insanity. But the leader of the opposition is going to build it. I wait to bear tbe hon. member for East Grey say. When ? But he must have it under government control if he builds from Moncton to Quebec, and he says he will build it if a practical route can be found. Well, I am sorry that he is not so kind to the people of the west as he is to his constituents in the maritime provinces, for the people of Manitoba and the North-west are to be left at tbe mercy of the wolves of private corporations. He says he will give the Grand Trunk Pacific, a private company, the right to build over the prairies. But his constituents must have the advantage of public ownership and operation, while we are to be left to the wolves of private corporations.
And the project of the leader of the government with regard to running rights was equally ridiculous. But over the 1,060 miles from North Bay to Winnipeg, the lead-


Thomas Walter Scott: er of the opposition is going to grant ruii-niiig powers to other companies. My hon. friend says that the government will own | that piece of line, but they do uot propose to own the line west of Fort William. For 430 miles they are going to have a line under the same conditions as the piece between Quebec and Winnipeg. The whole road from Quebec to Winnipeg was a piece 'of insanity, yet the leader.of the opposition is going to build it. He is not going to build it as a through-line. Why V We have heard a good deal since this proposition was brought down about paralleling the Intercolonial. What great friends the Intercolonial has in hon. gentlemen opposite. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not tlie idea of paralleling the Intercolonial that makes the project unpalatable to hon. gentlemen opposite; it is the idea that the Canadian Pacific Railway is going to be paralleled, that is where the shoe pinches. The Grand Trunk Pacific is going to he scores of miles shorter between Winnipeg and the Canadian winter port at St. John than the Canadian Pacific Railway even with its short line through Maine.
Now I am quite prepared to admit that there is some merit in the suggestion made by tlie leader of the opposition, and if It were the best plan suggested I would be willing to vote for it. As I have said, the initial cost does not appeal to me as such a serious matter. The estimated cost of the scheme of the leader of the opposition does not frighten me at all, and I would be willing to support it rather than the scheme brought down by the government if he could show that it has any advantage. He has suggested that we purchase the Canada Atlantic Railway. If any man can show where it will be of any advantage to the wheat growers or the beef growers west of Lake Superior, I will support it. But what is going to be the advantage of the government owning that piece of road after paying .$15,000,000 for it, as the hon. member for Bothwell estimated it would cost ? Call it $12,000,000 if you like, call it $1,000,000, what is the advantage of putting a single dollar into that road if the government, after it owns it, will not be able to reduce the freight rates in force upon it ?


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman favouring the Intercolonial being extended to Winnipeg ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I am in favour of any reasonable project if it can be shown that the people will get any advantage from it. But if I were living in a western Ontario constituency I would look at the project of the leader of the opposition with a good deal of hesitation. The Grand Trunk Pacific project puts every section of the province of Ontario into intimate connection with Manitoba and the North-west. The old Grand Trunk Railway Company taps every county in Ontario, practically. The leader

of the opposition proposes simply to run one single line from Montreal to Georgian bay and on to the west, leaving practically the whole of western Ontario and Toronto out of sight, unless an enormous expenditure is incurred to bring Toronto and other towns of western Ontario into connection with it. Now with regard to extending the Intercolonial to Winnipeg, and with regard to the whole principle of government ownership and operation, everybody knows that a line of railway has got to have feeders. The Intercolonial as a single line of railway across the country to the coast would be useless and a continual burden, as the Intercolonial has been upon the tax-payers since it was built, unless we built feeders for it. Now who would suggest that we should go to the expense of paralleling the Grand Trunk all over Ontario ? It would be madness. If we are to go on with any scheme of government operation at all let us carry it to its logical conclusion. If we are to extend the Intercolonial to Winnipeg it has got to have feeders in Ontario, and who will be foolish enough to advocate the paralleling of the Grand Trunk through Ontario ? We have got to purchase the Grand Trunk if we are going to have any extension of the principle of government ownership and operation in a practical way, we have got to make up our minds to nationalize all the railways in this country.
With regard to the further suggestion that we should purchase the north shore section of the Canadian Pacific Railway, it would be only in the last resort that I would consent to that proposition. But even in this respect he effectively answers one of the objections made to the government scheme by his followers. They have been saying that the government was going to keep the lean end of the road and give the fat section to the company. But he proposes to take over the leanest section of railway in North America, and leave the fat sections of the Canadian Pacific Railway system for the company. I have already referred to the condemnation of the original Canadian Pacific Railway scheme by the gentlemen who put it through. I think the hon. member for East Grey was in the House at that time, and even he admits to-day that it was a bad scheme. Well, the main idea of the scheme was certainly right and proper, but the conditions under which it was carried through and under which it is operated, have been a very serious handicap upon the people ever since.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. member sny that I admit that it was a bad scheme V


Thomas Walter Scott: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I never made any such admission.


Thomas Walter Scott: Now, we have got one man in this parliament who refuses to admit that the Canadian Pacific Railway was a bad scheme. But his leader admits that it was 320
a bad scheme. Was there ever a more powerful condemnation of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract terms than is involved in the suggestion of the leader of the opposition that we shall purchase now, after building the road for the company at a cost stated by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) of over $60,000 a mile-that after building the road and making a present of it to the company, as a measure to solve the transportation question now he suggests that we buy the road back again at its original cost. Could there be a stronger condemnation of that contract than is involved in this sugestion ? The plan is an excellent one for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. In reality, they could well afford to give away that section because it has never been a profitable section. As I have said, it runs through the worst piece of country for railway purposes to be found on this whole continent. They can get rid of this section and still have a through route by the Soo, Minneapolis and Moose-Jaw ; they can part with this section of their line and with a fraction of the price build a new link from a point west of Fort William connecting with their present Soo line.
The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) gives us an indication of what we will have to pay for that section. The hon. member for Bothweli estimated that we would have to pay $25,000,000 for it, but the hon. member for South Lanark tells us that the cost of the road was over $60,000 per mile. The hon. leader of the opposition did not suggest to the House that we should take that road away from the company at less than it cost to construct, and I have figured out the cost on the basis of $60,000 per mile to be $38,040,000, and I fear that figure does not include the whole cost. 1 fear that there is another idea in this project emanating from the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have already spoken of the rate monopoly provision. The Canadian Pacific Railway are shrewd enough to see that within two or three years the provision preventing any interference with rates until the earnings have reached the ten per cent mark will be worthless to them. As soon as there is effective competition they will not be able to derive any benefit from that provision and they have apparently got the hon. leader of the opposition to suggest the purchase of the unproductive section of their road and they will propose at the same time in connection with that the purchase at some millions of dollars the abrogation of the right against interference with the rates before it becomes worthless as the result of competition. But Sir, the most serious objection to the scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition is that it will be practically of no advantage as far as the Canada Atlantic Railway is concerned because it takes this amount of money out of the public treasury without opening up a single acre of land



and without practically giving an extra mile of railway. The estimate which the hon. member for Botliwell gives of the cost of carrying out the scheme of the hou. leader of the opposition is $00,500,1)00, bur 1 venture to say that it will be more likely to be $160,000,000 before we get through with it. 1 think the hou. member for Botliwell was scarcely fair in his calculation in regard to the alternative proposition. Hon. gentlemen opposite frequently remind us in regard to the $13,000,000 which is the cost estimated by the lion. Minister of Finance, a safe authority, 1 think we have always found him, of the eastern section from Winnipeg to Moncton within fifty years. Of course at the end of fifty years we will have to take -up the bonds. Hon, gentlemen opposite have been reminding us about the bonds. The hon. member for Bothwell gave us the figures of his calculation, the bonds being $60,500,000, but lie did not say a word about the interest. Is there going to be no interest-paid under the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition V 1 figure out at the rate of three per cent on the hon. gentleman's estimate of $60,500,000 that the interest payment will amount to $1,850,000 per year or in fifty years to $90,750,000 as against $13,000,000 which is the sum of interest to be paid by the country under the government plan.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will there be no earnings In the meantime 7


Thomas Walter Scott: At all events we know definitely by tile estimate of the hon. Minister of Finance .just what the proposition of the government is going to cost the people within fifty years. It is a matter of $13,000,000. If you adopt the alternative plan tlie country pays the interest. You do not have a company to pay the interest for forty-three years. In fifty years 1 am convinced that it would cost the country nearer $200,000,000 than $90,000,000 odd which would be the calculation on the basis of the estimate of the hon. member for Bothwell. The hon. member for Fast Grey (Mr. Sproule) reminds me that we might get some interest out of the operation of the road but this has not been the_ case with the Intercolonial Railway. If we run a single line of railway from one part of the country to the other without feeders we will have the same experience as we have had on the line of the Intercolonial Kailway. The Intercolonial ltailway has cost us $72,000,000 on capital account, but that is not the whole story. The country has been meeting the interest charge year by year and there have been only two or three years in which the receipts of the road have met the cost of operation. The annual interest charge on the Intercolonial Railway to-day is $2,500,000 which is met out of tlie public treasury. The Intercolonial Railway at the present time represents $72,000,000 of our national debt, and unless the Grand Trunk Pacific results in making


Thomas Walter Scott: the Intercolonial Railway a better property than it is at present it may soon have cost the country another $72,000,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman's argument is worth anything that a road cannot be made to pay without feeders and there is no proposition to have feeders for the road between Moncton and Winnipeg how is it going to be made to pay V


Thomas Walter Scott: Well, if my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) will look at the Bill which has passed through this House and which is now before the Senate lie will find that there is a proposition for feeders. There are going to be feeders from Regina, from Calgary and various other points in the west, and there are going to be feeders from Port Arthur, Toronto and Montreal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The feeders from Port Arthur will take the trade away from the road instead of to it.


Thomas Walter Scott: I will now come down to the question of rates and mileage. I was interested in listening to the hon. member for Holton (Mr. Henderson) who drew a picture of a train of cattle which would be brought down on the line proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. He asked whether the cattle would not go down just as safely and as satisfactorily if they were brought down by the line as proposed by (lie lion, leader of the opposition instead of by the Grand Trunk Pacific. Let us see the result. If they were brought down by the Grand Trunk Pacific they would travel a distance, as estimated by the hon. Minister of Finance, of 1,475 miles from Winnipeg to Quebec. I believe that is an excessive estimate. The estimate which has been furnished to me based upon surveyors and engineers reports is 1,392 miles. Let us take 1,475 miles as the distance from Winnipeg to Quebec by the Grand Trunk Pacific and then let us take the alternative plan. The distance from Winnipeg to Sudbury is 981 miles, from Sudbury to Scotia Junction is 120 miles, as stated by the hon. leader of the opposition, from Scotia Junction to Coteau 303 miles, from Ooteau to Montreal 37 miles, and from Montreal to I^evis, 163 miles; so that we have a line as suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition from Winnipeg to Levis of 1,603 miles as against 1.475 miles, being, as I think, the excessive estimate of the hon. Minister of Finance, or we have a line by way of the Grand Trunk Pacific 128 miles shorter than the line proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. This leads me to ask :	instead of purchasing the unprofitable section of the Canadian Pacific Railway and instead of purchasing the Canada Atlantic Railway which is a fairly profitable piece of road and on which extremely low rates prevail why does not the hon. leader of the oppositon propose to buy the Canadian Pacific Railway straight from Fort William to

Montreal ? It is a shorter line than that which he proposes. The Canadian Pacific Railway from Montreal to Winnipeg, according to their time table, is 1,424 miles, whereas, the line suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition by way of Winnipeg, Sudbury, Scotia Junction and Coteau to Montreal is 1,441 miles or 17 miles longer than the present Canadian Pacific Railway. Why not buy the Canadian Pacific Railway line from Montreal to Fort William-998 miles- instead of buying and building lines 1,015 miles long with two sections 37 miles and 120 miles to build ? Why ? Is it because the Canadian Pacific Railway does not want to sell a profitable section or to be deprived still of its through route via the Soo, St. Paul, Duluth and Moosejaw ? The government proposes to connect Winnipeg with Moncton by a line 1.801 miles according to the estimate of the hon. Minister of Finance, which, as I say, I believe to be an excessive estimate. I am advised that the line will be not more than 1,770 miles in length. The alternative plan which has been submitted by the hon leader of the opposition is for a line 2,091 miles long, making a difference ofi 230 miles in favour of the Grand Trunk Pacific line.
Now, I am free to say. Mr. Speaker, that if the Canadian Pacific Railway cannot profitably carry wheat by its line, which is 1,905 miles from Winnipeg to St. John by the Maine short line, it is very certain that the new line suggested by the leader of the opposition, which is 2,091 miles long, would afford to the North-west wheat grower practically no relief.
I have occupied a great deal longer time than I had any idea of doing when 1 rc)se to speak, but I have done this, of cours'ev partly with the assistance of my hon. friends opposite, who have asked a number of questions. I would appeal to the opposition members of this House to rise above party-ism, to take a patriotic stand and to consider the whole interest of the people of Canada in respect to this project. I would appeal to them to assist the government in putting through this project that does afford some prospect of relief to the people of western Canada and does afford encouragement to the whole of Canada, to the eastern provinces as well as the North-west Territories and the western provinces. I would ask them to profit by history and not to let partyism influence their action-not to oppose this scheme simply because i|t has been introduced by the government, not to let partyism lead them into the mistake of Hon. Edward Blake of disparaging the country through which this proposed line will run. I believe they are satisfied that it will run through rich sections which offer encouragement for railway building. At all events, let them take into consideration the deplorable situation in which the settlers of Manitoba and the North-west Territories have been during the last two years
320*
-conditions which have already been well described, and of which, I am sure, they are already aware. As I pointed out, the route suggested by the government is going to be a shorter line than any existing road, a shorter line from the wheat fields to the winter ports than any other which has been suggested. It will be many miles shorter than the road proposed by the leader of the opposition and a considerable distance shorter than the present Canadian Pacific Railway line to St. John, even by their short line through Maine.
If there is nothing in the argument in the hon. leader of the government in regard to the bonding privilege, why are hon. gentlemen opposite so concerned about the allCanadian idea. Why did the lion. leader of the opposition, speaking at Toronto in March, lay such stress on the Canadian idea and on the idea of having a line that is an all-Canadian line, which will take the traffic in the winter to Canadian ocean ports. But now he comes down with a suggestion offering opposition to the plan proposed giving the shortest possible line between Winnipeg and the ocean ports. He comes down with an alternative proposition which will give a line 200 miles longer than that suggested by tbe leader of the government.
Fears have been expressed that the new project is going to injure the Intercolonial Railway. I do not to any extent share these fears. I am satisfied that the prairies alone, apart from the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec, will in a few years afford sufficient traffic to tax every possible transportation route that may be utilized, to tax the Canadian Pacific Railway, to tax the new Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, to tax a road to Hudson bay, to tax tlie road which will eventually be built through from the Peace river to the Pacific coast, and I venture to say that we will within a short time be doing a large business on roads extending from the territories and Manitoba into the country to the south of the 49th parallel, just as the people of the east are doing a large and profitable business with the people in the United States adjacent to their territory. I believe we are entering on a new era; we cannot judge the business of the future by that of the past or the present. Is there a man in this House who will not admit that if he had been told seven years ago that tbe development of the past seven years would be as great as It has been he would' have said that the prediction was simply a dream and a dream that could not be realized. I believe we are entering into a new era and that the business of Canada is going to grow from this day faster even than it has in the last seven years. We have in Manitoba and the west tbe greatest prospect of development that ever existed in any country, and I believe that the next 12 or 15 years will see in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories the most remarkable and

tlie greatest development that ever took place on this planet. I judge that from what has taken place in the United States. Thirty years ago the western states, that today have cities of 100,000, 200,000, 250,000 population, that to-day have industries representing millions of money, that have millions of population-thirty years ago these states were not as far advanced as Manitoba and the North-west Territories, as is western Canada at this moment. In thirty years they have built up these industries, these immense cities, these millions of population. I think that if we do in fifteen years what the western states have done in thirty years, we will be doing nothing more remarkable. Things move faster to-day than they did thirty years ago. Winnipeg today is less than one-half the distance from Liverpool that Kansas City was thirty years ago. Electricity as a force was scarcely known thirty years ago. At that time the western states had to draw immigration from the eastern states and Europe, and when the immigrants arrived they had to make their own experiments, they were not accustomed to the conditions. We to-day have these western states as a field for immigration. The people coming from these states are able to work from the first day they arrive in the country; they understand prairie conditions and can immediately go to work practically and successfully. As an illustration, I may state that the people in the weslei'n states spent years and years in experimenting to get a plough that would be successful on the prairies. Western Canada has the advantage of all the experimenting that has taken place in the last thirty years in the United States and it is not drawing too fine a picture at all to say that we will do in fifteen years what has been done in thirty years in the United States. If that is the case, it will be a very few years until the Canadian west will, as I said a moment ago, be supplying traffic sufficient to tax the capacity of every possible transportation route that can be provided.
I would say to this House, particularly to lion, gentlemen opposite, that this is a time to show courage, not a time to be discouraged; there is every reason for courage. Look back at the country west of Lake Superior as it was thirty years ago and we find not a single mile of railway. In these thirty years, even with the hampering effect of the policy of lion, gentlemen opposite, who were in power for such a long period, eighteen years, even with that we have made remarkable progress. Whereas thirty years ago there was not a mile of railway west of Lake Superior, to-day there are 5,000 miles of railway; in Manitoba there are 2.450 miles and in the territories 2,550 miles, over 5,000 miles of railway, and to-day there are being built westerly from Manitoba across into the North-west Territories no less than five distinct lines of railway. There


Thomas Walter Scott: is the Areola branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is an extension to Regina; then there is the ICirkella branch, which runs north of the main line; there is the Manitoba and North-western, which is being pushed forward at last, and then there is the Erwood branch of the Canadian Northern Railway to Prince Albert, and the Grand View extension of the Canadian Northern, which is being pushed on to Edmonton. Thus there are five distinct lines to-day being built into that country. But as I said if we simply build the lines on the prairie, feeders for the main roads, and take no thought for the spout, as Sir Wililam Van Horne has termed the section between Winnipeg and Port Wililam, and our own winter ports, then we will simply lead to further congestion. I support the proposition of the leader of the government because it enlarges the spout, a thing that has been talked about for years.
I would say in conclusion that this is a problem sufficiently large to engage the attention of all the people of Canada, a problem that is of interest to every section and every part of Athis Dominion, a problem which must be dealt with in a spirit of national enterprise, prudence and courage. It is so dealt with in the plan of the government, and I have no fear for the result. The plan is one that cannot fail, under the blessing of Providence, which, as hon. gentlemen opposite have been good enough to say, has been meted out to Canada in a generous measure during the regime of the present government, to promote national de-velofnnent, national enrichment, national expansion and national solidarity-.


Mr. THOMAS BIRKETT (Ottawa).: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention at this late hour to speak at any length, still less to follow the two-hours-and-a-half harangue of the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). He has spent a great portion of that time in misrepresenting the contract which was made in 1881 between the Conservative government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That contract provided for a grant of $25,000,000, and 25,000,000 acres of land. The contract which was attempted to be made by the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie's government was for $10,000 per mile and 20,000 acres of land per mile, which would amount to $30,000,000 and 60,000,000 acres of land. I will leave these figures with the House, and the House can judge whether the hon. gentleman has represented the case correctly or not.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the contract made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company twenty-five years ago is not the matter which is now under discussion. No doubt the company made money out of that contract, as they had a perfect right to do. They took their chances, and others had the same opportunity ; and had it not been for the contract entered into at that time between

the Conservative government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, probably the gentleman would not have had the opportunity of representing a North-west constituency in this House. The Canadian Pacific Railway contract was so different from the contract now before the House that the two cannot be considered together. The development which has followed the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway has more than justified the wisdom and courage of the men who assumed the responsibility of putting the scheme through ; and to-day it is beyond the criticism of smaller men like the member for West Assiniboia.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have sat here, as many others have done, for the last three weeks, trying if possible to get a correct idea of what the probable cost of this new transcontinental line is to be ; but X have so far failed. Seven ministers have spoken on this subject, and they have all differed in their estimates. The rank and file have spoken, and they have differed also. The Prime Minister said that this undertaking would cost the country $13,000,000. No lion, gentleman who sits in this House has more respect for the Prime Minister than X have ; but when he says that he can build 1,800 miles of railway for $13,000,000, he is saying something which he cannot expect us to believe. I find by consulting ' Hansard ' that the cost of this new undertaking is estimated all the way from $8,860,000 to $138,850,000, each expert or valuator being equally positive of his figures. In the first place, the Premier gives his estimate, with all frankness, and without any hesitation whatever, at $13,000,000, and not one cent more. This estimate was received with loud cheers by the government's followers ; and well it might be, when the Premier of this Dominion says without any qualification that 1,800 miles of railway can be built through an unknown country for $13,000,000. That is certainly the kind of man this country wants. Then, we have an estimate from the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who says he has gone into this matter personally with a good deal of care, and who, with an equal amount of assurance of the correctness of his estimates says it will cost this Dominion $65,000,000 to construct this road of a standard similar to that of the Grand Trunk to-day. Next we hear from the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), whose estimate differs a little from that of his leader. Ho says he has figured that the road from Levis to Winnipeg can be built for $13,500,000. His estimate is $500,000 above that of his leader, although he says that his figures have been very carefully prepared by an actuary of the Minister of Finance. Next comes the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), who tells this House that he has gone into the matter very carefully, and that he finds that the
road can be built for an outlay of $2,000,000 per year during construction, and that it will take seven years to build it, so that when the road is completed it will cost the country $14,000,000. We next come to the estimate prepared by the ex-Miuister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair), a gentlemau who has been looked upon by his friends, who sit on the opposite side of this House, for the past seven years, as being an expert in railway building; and what does that lion, gentleman say ? He says that he has gone over the whole route, so far as the limited information in the possession of the government would permit him to make an estimate, and that after taking item by item, he figured up the total cost to be $138,850,000, as follows :
Cost from Winnipeg to Moncton.. $ 65,000,000
Interest during construction	 7,800,000
Ten years free rental	 19,500,000
Half per cent loss on interest during
term of contract	 18,500,000
Interest guaranteed and to be paid
on mountain section	 4,050,000
Guarantee on prairie section	 9,750,000
Guarantee on mountain section..	..	13,500,000Interest on prairie section, during half period of construction..	..	..	750,000Total	$138,850,000
Now, who is right, Mr. Speaker ? Surely the contention of this side of the House is reasonable, when we say we want a little more information on this subject. We have here the different estimates given to the House, and I think the people of this Dominion will he very much inclined to accept the estimate of the ex-Minister of Railways as being the nearest to the cost. Why, Sir, it is ridiculous to think or to tell the people of this Dominion that 1,800 miles of railway can be constructed through the country through which this railway has to pass, or any other country, for any such sum as 513,000,000.
Then we have another in the person of the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock), who after a two hours' struggle to get the fly knocked off his back, he comes to the conclusion that the Premier's estimate is right, and that the road can he completed for $13,000,000.
Still we have another, this one is prepared by the Finance Minister. He seems to have gone into a calculation very minutely, as he gives the cost to a cent. What is his estimate? It is different from all the rest. He gives us $11,512,327.02. We would naturally think that the amount of the estimate given by the Finance Minister is correct. He is satisfied that it is, as he further adds, that this is the grand total, and that he has still a surplus of several million dollars left. By that expression, we would think, he was still on the lookout for larger and more extensive fields to spend the balance of his surplus.
But the Finance Minister might be mistaken as to bis large surpluses. He was

mistaken once before. It will be observed that the Finance Minister is a very close tigurer. He might have omitted the two cents and thus have whittled down the cost somewhat, but he included the two cents like an honest man, and this, of course, gives his estimate an appearance of accu-. racy. It must be said of the hon. minister, that he is an acute political calculator. Some few days ago, I saw in one of the newspapers in the reading room, something to this effect, that when he was in the Nova Scotia government, he constantly issued statistics, showing how much money he was saving, but when he went out of office he left a debt of several million dollars, where previously he had assured the public none existed.
As Minister of Finance here in Ottawa, he is equally interesting. He is always reporting huge surpluses, and although he says that his receipts are from $12,000,000 to $13,000,000 more than he spends, he is still adding yearly to our public debt.
If his calculation as to the cost of the railway scheme is made on the same basis as his other financial exploits, don't you think, Mr. Speaker, we had better have them verified by some other person before accepting the figures he has given.
In referring to the cost, $13,000,000. or the lower estimates, $11,512,327.02, 1 am very much inclined to think that both the Finance and the First Minister are merely calculating interest on a suppositious amount. They know not and cannot know what the cost of the road will be. If the statements of the two ministers who have left the cabinet are reliable-and I believe they are- it is impossible to estimate what the outlay may be. These two gentlemen have given more time and study to the transportation question than have all the rest of the cabinet ministers put together, and they say that there is actually no information in the hands of the government on which to base any estimate. But what the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister and their colleagues seem to forget is that, acccepting their estimate of $13,000,000, it will only pay tlie interest while the road is under construction. That will take about seven years. Then there are seven years longer during which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway pay no interest, which will make fourteen years in all. so that the government will be out $26,000,000 instead of $13,000,000, assuming that the basis on which they calculate their interest is correct. But that we cannot know until the road is completed and we have its actual cost. I am very much inclined to think that the right lion, the leader of this House has forgotten the cost of constructing the road, which is to to cost all the way from $11,512,327.02 to $138,800,000. Is not this $13,000,000 the interest on the assumed cost of the road? If it were not either the right lion, gentleman or some of his followers would lie able Mr. BIRKETT.
to give the leader of the opposition the information he has asked for so often. He has asked them repeatedly to give him within ten million dollars the proposed cost of the road, and not one of them has attempted to answer that question. They do not know Whether it will cost $138,000,000 or $23S,-000,000. The interest may be double the thirteen million dollars, and this will only be known after the road is built.
But, after the road is built, what are the government going to do with it ? They propose to give it to a rich corporation which, if I am correctly informed, already owes this country some $60,000,000. During the first seven years this corporation pays no rent. During the next three years it pays a rental of three per cent, if the net profits enable it to do so. If not, the thred'per cent per annum is added to the cost of construction, and the company *will then have the road for fifty years, on paying annually three per cent on the cost.
That bargain will benefit the country pretty much as a bargain I am about to describe would benefit a private individual. A merchant goes to a company and says to it: I have got one hundred thousand dollars worth of goods which 1 want distributed in a new country ; I know that no profit will come out of this investment for at least seven or ten years. You will have to wait until the trade comes to you. If you will go out and use these goods there in connection with your trade, I will not charge you any interest or make any claim on you for the first seven years. All I will ask you will be to use those goods and not charge the settlers any more for them than the prices at which they could procure them at any point in the United States. At the end of tlie seven years, if you are able, from your net profit on those goods to pay me three per cent on the first cost during tlie next three years, you will do so. But if not, at the end of the three years, I will accept a bond on my own goods for my own interest, and then give you all the goods for the balance of the fifty years on the same terms as for the last three. This is the kind of a bogus agreement the government are asking this parliament to adopt and the country to endorse.
, The Finance Minister went into a further calculation. He said that if we would pay down to-day $8,853,502, we could buy from any large financial corporation on tlie annuity principle, the larger sum of $11,512,327.02, if paid out on yearly instalments during the construction of the road. In this case it wrnuld only cost $8,853,502. Now add to this $324,246 for interest, and $2,334,575 for our share of the Quebec bridge. Add these three items together and you get the Finance Minister's estimate for building 1.800 miles of railway. But, when tlie hon. Minister of Finance was dealing with the annuity system, why did he not go further and capitalize $300,000 and pay tlie

$13,000,000 estimate, and keep on that way capitalizing, and lie would Anally be able to build tlie road for nothing and still have a surplus, but tlie trouble now Is, as tlie bon. Minister of Agriculture says, as a matter of fact, the estimated cost to tlie country of tlie Grand Trunk PaciAc, was so ridiculously low that the country would not believe it.
This reminds me of an article I read in the Montreal ' Star ' of 28th August, entitled some questions and answers:
Q.-What will the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway from Moncton to Winnipeg cost ?
A.-The distance is 1,480 miles ; the cost, $30.000 per mile ; the total, $44,000,000, according to a moderate calculation by one of the ministers.
Q.-But Sir Wilfrid and-other ministers said the cost would only be $13,000,000. How do they do it ?
A.-This way : The interest on $44,400,000 at 3 per cent per year is $1,332,000. Now, the government will pay that for ten years, which makes $13,320,000. Hence Sir Wilfrid's figures. At the end of that time the Grand Trunk Pacific pays 3 per cent yearly on the cost of construction, if the road earns it !
Q.-Then, as a matter of fact, the government builds this $44,000,000 road, pays $13,000,000 more l'oi interest, and then hands the whole thing over to Cox and others, saying to them :
* Here's a competitor to the Intercolonial Rail way; hut as you 'couldn't wait,' take ii.'
A.-That's just it
Q.-Do the ministers apply this method of reckoning when dealing with the cost of Mr. Borden's alternative ?

They do not. On this basis the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic at a price of $16, [DOT] 000,000 by the government would give the people of Canada a profit of $120,000 per year.
Q.-How is that ?
A.-The Canada Atlantic road is capitalized at $12,000,000 ; it paid las,t year 5 per cent dividend-$600,000. Canada can borrow $16,000.000 at 3 per cent-$480,000. Bo you see we get the road for nothing, with $120,000 thrown in yearly.
Q.-But some of the Liberal speakers put the cost of acquisition of the Canada Atlantic at $30,000,000 ?	.
A.-Put it down as due to ' sentimental hysteria '-Cox can't, wait 1'
One of the reasons for proceeding with the construction of the road with so little knowledge and information was given by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hou. Sir Richard Cartwright) a few days ago In his address in this House. He said that the present government knew a thousand times more about this new transcontinental route than the late government of Sir John Macdonald knew about the Canadian Pacific Railway route when they made the contract, and that that government knew absolutely nothing about the route. Well, Mr. Speaker, taking the right hon. gentleman at his word, I simply figured the thing out. I multiplied nothing by a thousand, and I found that the result was nothing. But surely a thousand times nothing is a good deal worse than nothing. I would advise the Minister of Finance to apply his ready-reckoner to this proposition.
What hon. members on this side of the House are contending for is more information. It seems quite evident that what the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) and the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said was correct, that there was not sufficient information in the possession of the government to justify them in going on with this gigantic scheme. And these hon. gentlemen, as I say, gave more attention to the transportation question than did all the rest of the cabinet put together. So the government has no plans, surveys or reports or estimates to consider. It has been a game of go-as-you-please, each member playing off his own bat, not only as to cost and the length of time it will take to build, but the use they will make of the road after it is built. All this proves that the contention on the part of the opposition is well founded, that the agreement of the Grand Trunk Pacific^ has been made in haste and is certainly more in the interest of the company than in the interest of the Canadian taxpayer.
Now;, regarding the country that this1 road is-to pass through, I have a clipping here which does not exactly correspond with the description given by the Postmaster General, though I think it is nearer tlie truth. It is an interview with Lord Strathcona, published in the Montreal ' Star ' of the 19th August. Lord Strath-cona's attention was drawn to tlie fact that he had been quoted as favouring the Grand Trunk Pacific project. The interview proceeds :	.
* I have never.' he replied, * said one word either for or against the plan proposed by tho government, having given no study to the question, and being in absolute ignorance of the merits of the controversy. I have said, as I say now, that I was, and am, ill no position to give an opinion that would he of any value.
'I am aware that Mr. Blair, having objected to the paralleling of the Intercolonial Railway, has withdrawn from the cabinet, and in ray first leisure moments I purpose reading the speech in which he explained the stand. But further than that I am not en rapport with what has gone forward in my absence.
********
During my early days, I travelled over most of the region that is to be traversed by the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific and. while not wishing to venture any opinion either as to tho necessity or the feasibility of such a line, 1 may say unhesitatingly that I do not think that the country for agricultural purposes is comparable for a moment with that section of the Dominion already served by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway.
When the question was put to the Postmaster General the other evening with regard to the nature of the soil of that country-in fact he was speaking of tlie soil and timber there-he replied that the government had mountains of information ; in fact the woods were full of it. To my mind, this is a most frivolous statement.

and I do not think it is a proper answer for the Postmaster General to give to a question in this House. The House is entitled to some information. If the government has mountains of information, the House is entitled to share it. The government are asking authority to spend from $100,000,000 to $200,000,000 of the people's money, and we cannot afford to treat this matter as a joke. An interested taxpayer of this Dominion who heard the Postmaster General make his statement would naturally think that he was full of something else.
Reference has been made to the congestion and the blockade of wheat in the North-west Territories. This occurred a year ago. I find in the Toronto ' Globe ' of the 27th August the following :
There is not so great an amount of anxiety as there was regarding transportation. The elevator accommodation has been largely increased and the farmers have also made local provision for storage of their grain until it can be shipped.	*
So lion, gentlemen can see there is no cause for great alarm that the farmers of the North-west will not get theh; wheat out this year. The blockade that occurred last year is not likely to be repeated.
For the reasons given by the two exministers, I am against the scheme of the Grand Trunk Pacific. And I am against it also because it forms a business partnership between the government of Canada and one railway company for fifty years, and for this reason all other railway companies will be suspicious in their dealings with the government.
I am not going to say one word intentionally against the northern part of Quebec or against any part of our fair Dominion. I merely mention this to show how many different opinions are expressed about that new country. It is said by some to be a fertile land, capable of growing any grain or vegetable, and that it also abounds with magnificent timber and is rich in minerals. Others have said, since this Bill has been under discussion, that there are hundreds of miles of territory on which there is not sufficient soil to plant an onion, that there is no timber except of the very poorest kind, such as pulpwood, poplar, white birch and jack-pine, that there is not a tree or white pine in the district for miles from where the road is supposed to pass. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not give either of these statements as my own ; I merely mention them to show how little reliable information we have. I might here say that I have further information as to the rivers and lakes which this road is supposed to cross, and that the highest estimate made by the government for the construction of the whole road would not be sufficient to build the bridges. And now, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have just given, would it not be better for the government to withdraw their Bill and ask Mr. BIRKETT.
parliament to vote sufficient funds to make a thorough survey and come down to this House next session with an intelligent probable estimate of cost, which would be a little nearer the actual cost, than which appears now between the financiers' estimate and that of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, which is $127,000,000 ?
If the House does not wish to pursue this business-like course, and if they are honest in their arguments placed before this House, namely, to give additional facilities to transportation, to enable the farmer's of the west and North-west to move their abundant harvest, I would ask them, in the interest of this Dominion, and that portion known as the great west, particularly, to join hands with us on this side of the House, irrespective of party, and accept the policy laid down by the hon. leader of the opposition, that is to utilize the government railroad, Intercolonial, which now reaches from the Atlantic to the city of Montreal, connected with the Canada Atlantic Railway, and build a short line from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, a distance of 104 miles. Then arrange for running rights over the Canadian Pacific Railway to Winnipeg. This would cost the country about $60,000,000. We would own the road from Sudbury to the Atlantic, giving us an all-Canadian route, Montreal and Quebec as summer ports, and St. John and Halifax for winter ports.
The advantage of this route over the one proposed by the government would be this, instead of waiting seven or eight years for the government to build a road, and accepting this alternate route, you could have your freight office opened in Winnipeg, and doing business the day after this would pass the House. To those members who say 'This is not the time to wait, to consider, to reflect, or to inquire, but the time for action, drop the Grand Trunk Pacific which will take seven or eight years to build, and adopt a road which is now on a paying basis and will be a profit to the government every day it runs.


Mr. H. S. RE BAND (Beauce).: note that at the time this report was written, three routes were projected :
The central route (that is the route which the government proposes to follow in the present instance) after that along the boundary, is the most advantageous for through traffic, and as a factor in the settlement of the country and the development of its natural resources, it would stand first.
Such are the extracts I thought proper to read to the House. We have a mass of information from other sources, and it is useless for me to take up more time with this subject. When-the hon. Prime Minister, in an eloquent address, the other day, laid before the House the proposed scheme, the hon. leader of the opposition rose and opposed the measure in a general way. He did not state at the time that he had a settled railway policy. He did not say what would be his policy ; he retired to his rooms ; he meditated for a fortnight and then he returned to the House with a scheme which I shall endeavour to analyse, in so far as I have been able to grasp his meaning from listening to his speech and reading the report of it in the columns of ' Hansard.' Let us look into that scheme from the financial standpoint. The opposition in the first place does not accept the scheme of the government, let us see what they would put in its place. The Conservative party, through the voice of their leader, declared that they would provide a new transcontinental railway comprising the Canada Atlantic from Depot Harbour to Montreal. Prom Depot Harbour, the hon. leader of the opposition would construct a line 120 miles in length to connect with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Then, he would be prepared to expropriate the Canadian Pacific Railway from North bay to Fort William. Then again, the leader of the opposition would buy out one of the lines running from Fort William to Winnipeg, but would have running rights on both, that is on the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Northern both. From Winnipeg to Edmonton, he would subsisidize the building of a railway at the rate, I assume, of $13,000 per mile. Lastly, from Edmonton to Port Simpson, he would build a new line. Such is the policy of the Conservative party expressed as briefly as possible.
Nevertheless, the Conservative party, through their leaders, assert at public meetings that there is no need for a transcontinental, that it would be an unpardonable folly to build such a railway, and that the people should show their disapproval of the government's action, by withdrawing their support. And that same party, through its recognized leader, also proposes a plan for the building of a transcontinental. Explain if you can these contradictions.
Now,what would be the cost of the scheme propounded by the leader of the opposition? In the first place the line runs from Mont-Mr. BELAND.
real to Coteau Landing ; the cost would be at least $1,200,000. I do not think that estimate is too high. At all events, I see before me the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and some of his friends. If they think my estimate too high, let them say so, and we shall endeavour to come to an understanding as to the correct figure.
From Coteau the line runs to Depot Harbour. That section, which is 342 miles long will not come to less than $14,000,000. Here again, I believe that estimate a reasonable one. The hon. members for Jacques Cartier and Dorchester who are present may say whether my figures are too high.
From Georgian bay to Sudbury, the distance is 120 miles. Let us place the cost at $30,000 per mile', that would give us $3,000,000.
From North bay to Fort William, the distance is 034 miles. In esimating the cost at $50,000 per mile, and surely that would not be too high, considering the very great difficulties to he overcome in that part of the country, the amount obtained is $38,000,000 for that section. That estimate is not an unreasonable one, if we accept the statements made in the course of the debate, as it is alleged that this section is interrupted by mountains and precipices of all kinds.


Mr. MONK.: (Translation.) An arrange- ' rnent might be made with the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Mr. BELAND.: (Translation.) Iam speaking just now of the cost of the line proposed by the leader of the opposition.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Arrangements might be made with the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation.) That is another question.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) If the Canadian Pacific Railway can haul five times as much traffic as they are hauling at present, their road might be used much cheaper.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation. I doubt very much whether the Canadian Pacific Railway would be willing to give up that road for a less amount than it cost them ; especially when it is considered that the Canadian Pacific Railway stock which a few years ago sold at 25 cents is now quoted at $1.25.
From Fort William to Winnipeg, the distance is 425 miles, and the expenditure on that section would not be less than $15,000,000. From Winnipeg to Edmonton, the plan would he to build a road by means of a subsidy, as stated by the hon. leader of the opposition. That subsidy should not be less than $33,000 per mile, and the distance being 1,000 miles, that scetion would entail an expenditure of $13,000,000.
From Edmonton to Port Simpson, on the Pacific coast, the distance is GOO miles.

These six hundred miles would have to be constructed. According to the estimate of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart), that section would come to $30,000,000 at least. These various amounts total up to $104,S00,000 ; and in case the section of the Canadian Northern from Fort William to Winnipeg had to be acquired, as hinted by the leader of the opposition, $10,000,000 more would have to be added, which would make the total amount $114,800,000.
That is the lowest figure at which the scheme propounded by the Conservatives could be carried out. It may not be out of place, Sir. to mention right here that should the proposal of the hon. leader of the opposition be taken up, the country would have to buy existing lines to the amount of $07,000,000. Will the Conservative lender say to whom the $07,000,000 would go ? Would they be spent for the benefit of the people, the labourers, the manufacturers ? No, the country would pay that enormous amount to great railway corporations.
We have figured out the cost of the opposition scheme at $114,800,000. But that is not all. At this point of his statement the leader of the opposition, noticing, no doubt, some signs of surprise on the part of his neighbour, the member for Jacques Cartier, a surprise mingled with sadness and verging on despair, must have said to himself : My colleague from Jacques Cartier should have his sop, and what did he offer him ? A short colonization railway from Quebec to Winnipeg, covering only 1,400 miles. And thinking that might be heavy to stomach, the leader of the opposition was careful to state that such a road should be built cheap. I assume he means by that about $20,000 per mile. That would be $28,000,000 for the section from Quebec to Winnipeg, to be constructed cheap, piecemeal, at the rate, say, of about twenty miles a year, and which it would require seventy years to complete.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Will my hon. friend allow me to inquire whether he has not a colonization railway in his own county ? Why are not railways needed to open up the country in the county of Beauce ? Since he is making inquiries from me, I may be permitted to put a question myself.


Mr.   BRLAND@: (Translation.) I am very glad the hon. member for Jacques Cartier made that inquiry ; and my answer is : Yes. In further explanation I may state, not only do I take an interest in the general affairs of the country, but I also look after the specif 1 interests of my constituents. My hon. friend may be surprised to Team that before long the government will grant assistance towards extending a certain section already in existence, and which will run through new settlements. My hon. friend has gone through Beauce county recently ; he addressed the people there. It was his right to do so, although perhaps not his duty. My hon. friend went through the
whole length of the county of Beauce, from Tring Junction to Lake Megantic, ana he probably noticed that the line goes through a new country ; but there is another branch line running 'from Beauce Junction to St. Francois, and it is on behalf of that extension that we are applying to this paternal and co'oniz'ng government. Will my hon. friend be willing to support our application?
Now let us return to the scheme under discussion. The hon. leader of the opposition, after granting a smallish colonization road 1,400 miles long to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, turned to the maritime provinces. After carefully considering what would be the effect of the statements he had just made in opposing the government plan to build a line from Lfivis to Moncton, he stated that perhaps it might be proper to build a line from Levis to Moncton. For the sake of accurateness, I shall quote the very words of the leader of the opposition :
I say that if there is a better line between Levis or RiviSre du Loup, or any such port on the Intercolonial, and Moncton, a line' the construction of which will give to Halifax and St. John a better fighting chance for western traffic than that which they have at present, I will support the construction of that line.
As may be seen, the leader of the opposition is not stinting in any way. He has provided a transcontinental from Montreal to Port Simpson ; now, to satisfy the requirements of the Conservative party and relieve the situation of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in the province of Quebec, he is prepared to construct a colonization road from Moncton to Winnipeg. That is not all ; let me quote again from the hon. leader of the opposition, and it will be seen that there is nothing too good for him. Referring anon to the colonization road from Quebec to Winnipeg-he said :
Not only build that line, but operate it as a government line. A government line, it seems to me would be peculiarly suitable to that country for colonization purposes, and I see no reason wby the problem should not be solved in that way. If within a certain number of year3, a practical route he found, then extend that road to the Pacific coast ? Build it as a government road from Quebec to the coast.
The plan is no longer to stop at Winnipeg ; he has in hand a second transcontinental line clean through to the coast. Well, Sir, I shall not proceed further in criticising the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition. But I believe that estimate of $20,000 per mile for a colonization road, offered to the bon. member for Jacques Cartier, is not excessive; and If that road is to be carried from Moncton to tlie coast, as I have just pointed out in that quotation, we reach a total amount for the two transcontinentals of $205,000,000. I was not surprised, Sir, when I heard, the other day, the leader of the opposition say that he was not afraid of spending money. Here are his very words :
10231

There .is no reason to be afraid of spending money, x am not afraid of spending money. And the country is not afraid of spending money.
X think the estimate given a few days ago by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in his speech at I.,ake Megantic, of $100,000,000 as the probable cost of the government scheme, although greatly exaggerated, is left far behind.
But I did not take into account, in my calculation the expenditure entailed by tbe equipment of these lines of railway. Neither did I mention the cost of equipping the Atlantic and Pacific ports, as well as those of Georgian bay ; nor the cost of elevators and barns referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis)-all things rendered necessary by the plan of the leader of the opposition. If we were to take into account all the items of expenditure involved in the carrying out of that reckless scheme, I think we would easily reach the figure of $300,000,000.
On the other hand, the plan of the government is simple. The line extends from Moncton westward. It runs from Quebec to Ivfivis, or Quebec ; from Quebec to Winnipeg ; from Winnipeg to Edmonton, and from Edmonton to Port Simpson. It goes through a very fine region, and particularly through tbe counties of Rimouski, Temis-eouata, ICamouraskn, L'Islet, Montmagny, Bellechasse, Dorchester and Levis.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Will m.y bon. friend allow me to inquire whether that road is to run through Beauce county ?


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation.) No, Beauce county is not to be crossed by that line, and if I am in favour of the government scheme, it is not for motives of sectional interest, but because I am satisfied that it will further the progress of industry, commerce and colonization throughout Canada. That is the broad view I take. I support tbe measure because it is bound to open up and develop an immense and exceedingly fertile territory, well adapted to colonization and agriculture, abounding, besides, in resources of all kinds : pulp wood, minerals and so forth. From Quebec to Winnipeg, that line will go through a magnificent country, a region which, as regards natural wealth, stands second to no other in Canada, to no other south of James bay and Lake Nepigon. It contains minerals and pnlp wood in almost limitless quantities. and these resources will be turned to usefulness by the building of the national transcontinental.
As regards the section from Winnipeg to Edmonton, is it necessary that I should take up the time of the House to show how extremely- fertile and suitable to the growing of wheat, are the prairies which this road will cross ?
The Rocky Mountains sections is not a very advantageous one ; but to reach the Pacific it is necessary to cross it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Now, let us see what will be the cost of that railway. The scheme brought forward by the hon. leader of the opposition would cost $205,000,000, without taking into account the equipment of the ports, canals, building of elevators, and so forth. On the other hand, the scheme of the government, according to the wildest estimate made by a certain member of the opposition would not come to more than $100,000,000, in round figures. I think the hon. member for Jacques Cartier stated that that railway might he built for less, for about $00,000,000, in round figures. The hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) placed the cost at $83,000,000. What does the hon. Minister of Finance say ? He says the cost will not exeeed $54,000,000, and that the total amount which the country will have to pay o t as interest on the capital invested (that capital coming back to us in the shape of ownership of the railway), will not exceed $13,000,000 in all. I think the estimate made by the hon. Minister of Finance is correct, and that we are safe in going by it, as we know with what care and prudence he made his calculations and how exactly his financial estimates tally with the actual results.
Here we have two policies before us. The Conservative party also favours the building of a transcontinental railway ; they reject the government scheme. They advocate another, devised to suit their views, and the probable cost of which will he $205,000,000. On the other hand, the government propose building a new transcontinental railway, at a cost which, according to hon. members of the opposition themselves will not cost more than $100,000,000, that is less than half the amount needed by the alternative scheme. But that is not all. What is the difference between the government scheme and that of the leader of the opposition ? There is one, and it is very noticeable. Under the government plan, the transcontinental line will go through a new country, fertile lands, rich in timber, pulp wood, water powers and mineral deposits. It will give a new impetus to colonization, especially in the province of Quebec; and I venture to say that, if the government measure carries-and it will- from the city of Quebec to the western boundary of the province, and in northern Ontario as well, two hundred thriving parishes, to say the least, will spring into existence on either side of the road, and within twenty-five years.
I see I have gone beyond the limit I had assigned to myself at the beginning of my remarks. The hon. member for East Sim-coe (Mr. Bennett) stated, the other day, that the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister had been printed by tens and hundreds of thousands and distributed all over the country, evidently, for purposes of gaining votes. I think the speech delivered by the right hon. leader of the government is a most admirable one, a monument of elo-

quence which both as regards substance and form has not perhaps its parallel in Unparliamentary records of this country. But, notwithstanding my admiration for it, I must say that if my object was to induce my constituents to support the government proposal, I would preferably put in their hands the speech of the leader of the opposition. I do not think a more hybrid, more mistaken, more nefarious policy could be concocted ; it is, to my mind, an unsightly mass of solids, liquids, and gas, especially the latter.
Before closing my remarks, I wish to draw the attentioni of the House to an insinuation made by a leading member on the other side, the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. 'Clancy). In the course of his remarks that hon. gentleman tried to lay to the charge of the member for Bonaventure a most unfortunate insinuation. I regret that the hon. member for Bothwell should not be present. At all events, he insinuated that the hon. member for Bonaventure had branded his ETeneh Canadian compatriots as hewers of wood and drawers of water. I do not think a more trivial designation could be used in speaking of any nationality. Is there any one in this House or outside of it who, knowing the hon. member for Bonaventure and his loyalty to his people, would for one moment believe that he would have decried them in this House ? Surely no hon. gentleman, not even the member for Bothwell, believes it to be so ; but this insinuation had to be cast on the shoulders of the hon. member for Bonaventure. Does the hon. member from Bothwell think for one moment that the member for Bonaventure would brand as ' hewers of wood and drawers of water ' the race of which I belong and which I am proud ? Such an insinuation is uncalled for, and whatever may have been the,object of the person who made it, I deem it my duty to protest energetically against the use of such expressions, and to protest not only in my name and in that of my county, but also in the name of English speaking members of this House. I am satisfied that not one of them is in sympathy with the hon. member for Bothwell on that point. There is a form of disease known to physicians as prurigo which is characterized by severe itching. I have often wondered whether there did not exist a corresponding mental disorder to be called francophobia, the main symptom of which would be an instinctive impulse to scratch at French Canadians.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) In the absence of the hon. member for Bothwell, 1 think it is incumbent on me to ask my hon. friend whether the member for Bothwell did not state that the expressions referred to had been used by the hon. member for Bonaventure. I think my hon. friend should accept the correction.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation.) What I have stated will be recorded in the ' Hansard.' I spoke with care, as I realised it mis a delicate subject to deal witn, and I shall repeat what I said for the benefit of my hon. friend.
I said that the member for Bothwell had placed on the shoulders of the member for Bonaventure


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Placed on the shoulders, I do not understand the meaning of that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation.) 1 shall try to make myself clear. I say that the member for Bothwell insinuated that my hon. friend for Bonaventure had branded his people as drawers of water and hewers of wood, when, in truth, he never uttered such words.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) My hon. friend from Bothwell did not say that, hut he contended the hon. member for Bona-venture had said so.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation.) Why ? I say that my hon. friend from Bonaventure never used those words, and I would like to know what was the object of the hon. member for Bothwell in saying that lie had used them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) No doubt, the member for Bothwell wished to rebuke the member for Bonaventure for having-used the words which he assumed he had used in referring to the French Canadians.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation.) Can it be assumed for one moment that the member for Bonaventure wished to insult his compatriots ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Does my hon. friend think that the member for Bonaventure used those words ?


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation.) Not at ail.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) I have no reason of suspecting the good faith of the member for Bothwell or his good feelings towards the French Canadians.


Henri Sévérin Béland: (Translation.) Well, if the hon. gentleman has not, I have. Before taking my seat, I wish to add that, as regards, at least, the province of Quebec, the government scheme is bound to give to an important part of its territory a degree of prosperity unknown to it at present. I understand that this scheme will open up a large area of its tillable lands and turn to utility its water powers and its forest wealth. I realize on the other hand that the plan of the leader of the opposition will not open up any new territory, as he is content with buying existing roads, in fact almost all the roads In existence from Montreal to the Pacific ocean. I wonder if, having reached that western ocean whose waters expanded before him, he did not exclaim : Is there not something more here I could buy ?


Mr. D. A. STEWART (Lisgar).: At this early hour of the morning I will not detain the House very long. During this discussion many speakers have referred to the Mr. BELAND.
conditions in Manitoba and the western territories, more particularly to the congestion that has taken place from year to year in moving the wheat crop to the head of navigation on the lakes. Now if you take a look over the last fifteen or twenty years you will see how the wheat crop has been expanding. In 1883 Manitoba raised only a little more than five million bushels of wheat. From 1883 to 1893 the settlers iu that province were going through the experimental stage. Most of the early settlers who went in there were poor men, very few of them started with more than a team of horses or a yoke of oxen. But they gradually forged ahead. Finding out what the country could do, what their lands could do, they began to improve their farms and raise their own horses and cattle. About 1893 they found their strength much increased, and broke up a great deal more land. In 1891 we find they had a crop of over twenty-five million bushels of wheat. Owing to weather condition, this figure kept moving up and down until 1895, when another enormous crop was raised, which taxed the powers of the railways to move it. In that year threshing from the stook became general, but many had to stack as they have yet for lack of threshing machines ; and the work of threshing went on during the winter months. The farmers, learned that to avoid loss, threshing must be done before winter sets in, and went to work. Many farmers were unthreshed when winter set in, and when the snow melted, it formed ice, and some wheat was spoiled. Now, if the Canadian Pacific Railway had done what they should have done, they would have supplied themselves with rolling stock to move this crop. The farmers went to work and organized themselves into groups of two, three, of four, and spent some 10 or 12 million dollars in procuring threshing machinery ; so that last year, as soon as the hinders ceased running the threshing machines began work, and in seven weeks a crop of 100,000,000 bushels was ready for the elevators. Now we have been criticised for not building more granaries. The fact is we have more granaries in southern Manitoba in proportion to our population than in any other part of Canada. There are men in my neighbourhood who can store from 5,000 to 20,000 bushels of grain. If the grade suits the farmer, why put his grain in the granary and then take it out again when the elevator is empty ? The elevator is ready to receive the grain and the empty car is there ready to move it away. It is better for us and it is better for the business men to move it away at once, because as soon as the grain begins to move the money begins to circulate among the farmers, and through the business channel of the country.
Now it is thought something wonderful that 41,000 farmers in Manitoba should pro-

Once 100,000,000 bushels of grain, wheat, oats and barley. Divide that crop among
41.000	farmers, and you have a little less than 2,500 bushels for each farmer. Divide the area among eacli of these farmers, and you have about 80 acres each under crop. That shows that the farmers of Manitoba have not by any means reached their limit in the number of acres they can put under crop. Before this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is built, I believe that Manitoba will have three-sevenths of her 25,000,000 acres under wheat. For throwing out fifteen or twenty million acres for lakes and timber lands, there will be left about 25,000,000 acres for crop, and three-sevenths of this area will be growing grain. That will mean
300.000.	000 bushels of grain of all kinds. It Is very likely that the 31,000 new settlers that went in last year, if they only break up 100 acres each, will add as much to the area under crop as is under crop to-day in Manitoba. We may very likely have another
150.000.	000 bushels of wheat in the Territories by the time this new road is built, in five-years from now.
The farmers who are within two and a half miles of the town find it best to team their wheat at .once from the threshing machine to the elevator. There are about
3.000	machines working in Manitoba during the threshing season. During the early part of the season they take most of the grain direct from the machine to the elevator. The result is that in three or four weeks the elevators are filled up to the top and they have men at the top of the bin shovelling the grain back to make room for more. The cars are all full and on their way to Fort William and the terminal elevators are filled to their capacity. The time for the close of navigation prices has always been getting earlier in the season owing to the larger crops that have been produced. The farmer living six, eight or ten miles away from the elevator is too far distant to team his grain direct from the thresher. After he has threshed and comes in with a load of grain he finds the elevators too full to receive his grain. The farmer's | Credit is good with the business man and he will give him a machine on time, the farmer giving a note for the indebtedness. This matures on the 1st November. The farmer comes in with his wheat but he finds that there is no room for it in the elevator. You tell a man to be a good loyal Canadien, but when the icy blasts come down upon the lakes and the St. Lawrence and close navigation how is he going to dispose of his wheat ? There may be a way open for him to the south. I live quite near to the international boundary and I know that a man in such a case will go across the line and ship his wheat by an American road. Sentiment is nothing to him. It is business with him. He wants to turn over his wheat, he wants to pay his note, he wants to start the year with a clean sheet. That is why.
on the transportation question, there is so much discontent in the west. If one million bushels of wheat a week or 160,000 bushels a day blockade these two roada	wm
the condition be when they have to handle 300,000,000 bushels of wheat or a million bushels a day ? Will another road not be needed ? It is up to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway for the next few years to supply sufficient rolling stock and motive power to take out that constantly increasing crop, and my opinion is that owing to the great development that is going on the blockade will not he relieved until we get another road. The settlers who are coming in from the United States are bringing' with .them large quantities of ploughs, binders and mowers, and those who own threshing machines will bring them in also. Some of them have as many as sixteen or eighteen horses. In this respect they differ altogether from the settlers who went into the North-west in the seventies. A settler who located not far from where I live in 1902 and who bought a section of land had in the first year 400 acres of land ready for crop. He is a prairie farmer from the south and lie will not be satisfied until he gets every acre under the plough. He represents the class of settlers who are moving from the United States to the North-west with all the plant necessary to put a large area under the plough ; and in a few years will have a greater development than those who went into the North-west in the seventies have achieved in twenty years. One American settler was asked by a customs officer at Winnipeg what induced him to settle on the Canadian side of the line. TIis answer was this :	I sold land for $40 an acre that
would raise ten bushels of wheat to the acre. I bought land in Manitoba for $10 an acre that would raise forty bushels to the acre. His reason was sixteen to one in favour of coming to this country. That man is not going to he satisfied with a few acres. He has come to raise wheat and he is not going to stop at thirty acres which the regulations require a homesteader to have under cultivation at the end of three years; hut will have every acre he possibly can under cultivation. I expect that the increase in the production of wheat for export during the next few years in the west will be something enormous.
Looking at the two schemes that are laid before us I think that I may say safely that the principle of affording relief to the west Is admitted. The government have brought down one proposition and the hon. leader of the apposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has proposed an alternative scheme. The scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition involves a large outlay of money amounting to many millions of dollars and who will get the most of those millions ? Mr. J. R. Booth of the Canada Atlantic Railway will get a large slice of it and the rest will go to

the Canadian Pacific Railway, with no new country developed and no new land opened up. On the other hand the government's sciemo opens up an enormous new territory, it gives access to a new timber bolt, and it affords facilities to settlers on the prairies. It will give us a new line but I think that within a short time after we have that line built, the hopper of the west that we have been increasing from year to year will be so full and so large that we will be asking for another spout as the spout that we will have down the St. Lawrence to Montreal, Quebec and St. John will be handling all the business that it can handle. We will need another spout by way of Hudson bay and we will have to build another port at the magnificent harbour of Churchill.
On motion of Mr. Fowler, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) the House adjourned at 12.50 a.m., Tuesday.



HOUSE 0E COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 1, 1903.