1903-09-03

PRIVATE BILLS-EXTENSION OF TIME.

Mr. A. MORRISON (New Westminster) moved :: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 28th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, that portion of the 49th rule of this House which limits the time for receiving petitions for private Bills, be suspended in reference to the petition of John Henry and others praying for ait Act of incorporation under the name of the Westminster Bridge Company, presented this day, and that it be read and received forthwith.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Before that is adopted, I want again to draw attention to the great abuse that has been perpetrated on this House during the present session by presenting petitions and introducing Bills quite regardless of the rule which should govern the House. There is no doubt whatever that we have paid no attention to it for some months past. If the rules are of any value, they should be observed as -closely as possible. There is no doubt that exigencies may arise which would justify a departure from the rule, but we have departed from it so frequently this session, without any apparent effort on the part of the government to keep the House to an observance of the rule, that it seems to me some one ought to draw attention to it, and that either we should regard the rule or abolish it entirely.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I do not at all agree with my hon. friend. I think the rule this session has been violated much less frequently than in former sessions, and I think I can appeal to the sense of the House that of late years the practice of introducing private legislation after the time fixed for it has passed, has been seriously checked. But, of course, circumstances have to be considered, and sometimes it is well to suspend the rule.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely the Prime Minister does not mean to say that the rule has been observed this session ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Less violated than in former sessions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. PUTTEE asked :: 1.	Has the time specified in the contract for the completion of the St. Andrews Rapids improvement expired ?
2.	Has the time been extended? If so, what are the conditions of such extension ?
3.	What steps are to be taken to secure the speedy completion of this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The whole matter is at present receiving the earnest consideration of the depar* meat.


BRANCH LINE AT RIVER OUELLE, INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Air. Alt)NIC asked :
1.	What is the total cost to date of the branch line built by the government from the Intercolonial Railway at River Ouelle station to St. Denis wharf ?
[Stage Direction]
2.	To whom was the contract for the construction of said branch line let. a nd for what price ?
3.	Has the contractor been allowed any extras ; and if so, to what amount ?
4.	Were tenders for such construction called for through the newspapers ; and if so, who was the lowest tenderer ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hou. W. S. Fielding) :: 1.	The total payment to date is $77,940.70.
2.	Messrs. Purcell & Fallon are the contractors.
3.	No extras have been allowed.
4.	Tenders were invited through the public press. Messrs. Purcell & Fallon were the lowest tenderers.



THE KING'S SOUTH AFRICAN MEDAL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Osier-asked :
1.	Was the petition of the non-commissioned officers and men of the different Canadian contingents who served twice in South Africa, which was received by the government in April last, and which prayed that the regulation issued by the imperial authorities for the granting of the King's South African medal might be so amended as to make it possible for men who had served in Canadian contingents, forwarded to the imperial authorities ; and if so, on what date ?
2.	Did the Canadian government forward with the petition any* recommendation or suggestion to the imperial authorities, asking that the prayer of the petition might be favourably considered ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick W. Borden).: In order that this question may be fully understood, with the permission of the House, I will read the correspondence with reference to the subject, which will not be very long. The question was first raised with reference to this matter on the 13th of August, 1902, by a communication from the Canadian government to the imperial authorities in the following terms :
August 13, 1902.
The undersigned having carefully considered the inclosed memorandum from the major gen-erel commanding the Canadian militia, dated 12th instant, relative to the bestowal of a medal and payment of the gratuity to the members of the 3rd. 4th. 5th and 6th regiments, Canadian Mounted Rifles, has the honour to report to Your Excellency in Council that he concurs with the above memorandum and begu to recommend that the same be forwarded to the home government for consideration.
Respectfully submitted,



MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.

[Stage Direction]
This is the memorandum :
August 12, 1902.
Hott. the Minister,
Militia and Defence.
Sir.-I have the honour to report that a great deal of dissatisfaction exists among the officers, non-commissioned offlcers and men who belong to tiie 3rd. 4th, 5th and 6th Canadian Mounted

[Stage Direction]
Rifles, owing to their being returned to their homes so soon. The men say that they expected to serve for twelve months at the least, and large numbers gave up lucrative employment to serve His Majesty in South Africa.
The conditions under which volunteers were called for. read * twelve months, or until the termination of the present war in South Africa.'
The following question was put to men on attestation. * Are you willing to be attested to serve in the Canadian Mounted Rifles for a period of twelve months or until the termination of the present war in South Africa ?'
Although it may have been intended to enlist the men to serve only until the termination of the war, the paragraphs quoted have been evidently read by large numbers of men to mean for twelve months, or if the war lasts longer, until the end of the war.
It is further a great disappointment to the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of these regiments that they did not arrive ia South Africa before the cessation of hostilities, 31st May, and that therefore they are not entitled to the South African medal.
i consider it very unfortunate that the officers. non-commissioned officers and men who so readily volunteered when further reinforcements were called for, many of them making great sacrifices in leaving their civil avocation, should be disappointed and in many instances dissatisfied, and with a view to removing the causes therefor I strongly recommend that His Excellency the Governor General may be moved to bring the matter to the attention of His Majesty's government with a view to obtaining, <X) the South African war medal, without any clasp. The want af a clasp will clearly lla-tinguish those who arrived after the cessation of hostilities from those who took the field against the enemy. (2) The gratuity to which officers and men would have been entitled if they had arrived before the 31st May.
The bestowal of a medal and the payment of the gratuity will be considered a concession and will be much appreciated by all ranks and they will. I am satisfied, he ready to again volunteer should their country require them.
The Canadian Mounted Rifles arrived in South
Africa as follows :-
Capetown. Durban.
3rd	Regiment	 May 31
4th	Regiment, 2 squadrons May 31
4th Regiment, H. Q.'s and
2	squadrons	
June 8	June	115th	Regiment	
June 18	June	226th	Regiment	
June 8	June	11
I have the honour to he, Sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
From Mr. Chamberlain to Lord Minto.
Downing Street, 11th November, 1902.
My Lord,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's despatch No. 278 of the 22nd August transmitting a copy of an approved minute of your Privy Council on the subject of the bestowal of the South African medal and the payment of the war gratuity to the members of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th regiments, Canadian Mounted Rifles.
I have to acquaint you, for the information of your ministers, that I have submitted the question to the consideration of the Secretary of State for War, but that he, after careful consideration with his military advisers, has decided that no relaxation can he made of the﻿10493

date limiting the grant of the medal or war gratuity.
I have to add that this rule has been adhered to in the case of all the imperial troops who landed in South Africa after the 31st of May, and of the 5th, 6th 7th and 8th battalions of the Australian Commonwealth Horse.
I have, &c.,
(Sd.) CHAMBERLAIN.
Downing Street, 6th May, 1903. My Lord,-I have the honour to transmit to you for the information of your ministers with reference to your despatch No. 114 of the 24tli of March, the papers noted in subjoined schedule.
I have, &c.,
(Sd.) J. CHAMBERLAIN. The Officer administering The government of Canada.
War Office, London, S.W.,
2nd May, 1903.
Sir,-With reference to your memo, of the 24th ultimo, No. 13371, 1903, transmitting a copy of a despatch received from His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, covering a communication from Colonel W. B. Evans, late commanding 2nd C. M. R., in which that officer requests a more liberal interpretation of Army Order 232 of 1902, in order that the members of the above unit may be permitted to reckon the full period of their special service as qualifying for the award of the King's South African medal, I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that Mr. Brodrick regrets that the decision conveyed in the War Office letter of the 11th February last, No. 68, S. A. 40, cannot be relaxed in favour of the above mentioned corps.
I am, &c.,
(Sd.) G. FLEETWOOD WILSON.
Downing Street, 14th Feb., 1903.
My Lord,- I have the honour to transmit to you, for the information of your ministers, with reference to my telegram of the 9th February, the paper noted in subjoined schedule.
I have, &c.,
(Sd.) ONSLOW.
The officer administering The government of Canada.
11th February.-W. O. to C. O.-Reckoning of service on board ship as qualifying service for the award of the King's South African medal.
War Office, London, S.W., 11th February, 1903.
Sir,-With reference to your letter of the 7th instant, No. 4876, 1903, I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to inform you that service on board ship is not to be reckoned as qualifying service for the award of the King's South African war medal, except in the case of those individuals who come under the terms of paragraph 4 of Army Order 232 of 1902, when the period spent on the voyage from South Africa is allowed to be considered towards the qualifying period.
I am, &e.,
(Sd.) R H. BRADE, for U. S. of State.
Colonial Office to Lord Minto.
London, 12th February, 1903.
To Governor General,
Ottawa.
Your telegram of 5th February, service on board ship is not to be included in time necessary for medal, except in case of those coming under paragraph 4, Army Order No. 232, last year, when period of voyage from South Africa 's counted.
(Sd.) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.
The General Officer Commanding Canadian Militia.
To the Honourable the Minister of Militia and Defence.
Ottawa, 18th March, 1903.
Forwarded in order that you may decide whether or not to again bring this matter before the imperial authorities for further consideration.
(Sd.) DUNDONAL11,
Major General,
Commanding Canadian Militia.
20th March, 1903.
Sir,-With reference to Colonial Office despatch No. 48 of the 14th February last, transmitting War Office letter of the 11th February, stating that service on board ship is not to be reckoned as qualifying service for the award of the King's South African war medal, except in the case of those individuals who come under the terms of paragraph 4 of Army Order 232 of 1902, when the period spent on the voyage from South Africa is allowed to be considered towards the qualifying period, I have the honour by direction, to forward, herewith, an appeal from the officer commanding the 2nd regiment, Canadian Mounted Rifles, to the commander in chief, in which Colonel Evans asks for a more liberal interpretation of the order bestowing the medal, as far as his regiment is concerned, and to request that His Excellency the Governor General may be moved to forward the appeal for the consideration of the commander in chief.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) L. F. Pinault, Colonel, Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence. The Military Secretary
To His Excellency the Governor General, Ottawa.
This is Col. Evans' position :
Before transmitting the medal rolls of the' 2nd Canadian Mounted Rifles for the King's medal for service in South Africa during the recent war, I respectfully submit, for the ruling of the commander in chief, the reasons which, in my opinion, entitle those who served in my late regiment, to such liberal interpretation being given, in its case, to the term ' war service,' as employed in paragraph 3 (b) of Army Order 232, dated 1st October, 1902, as will result in their being permitted to reckon the full period of their special service under this clause of the Army Order.
[Stage Direction]
1.	These men were not, up to the date ot their attestation, serving the Crown in any military capacity which rendered them liable to serve in South Africa.
2.	Their engagement was specifically for ' war service,' and it should, therefore, I submit, be construed as such from the dates of their special engagements. This fact I desire to emphasize.
3.	When this regiment was raised, special encouragement and preference was given to men who had already served in one of the former Canadian contingents or in Strathcona's Horse, and, in response to such preference, those whose names are included in the medal rolls now submitted left their civil avocations for the second time and enlisted under a specific attestation for * war service.'
4.	While I do not desire to recall in detail the special services of this regiment, during the last few months of the war, I may he permitted to quote the telegram from General Ian Hamilton, promulgated in Militia Order No. 164 of 1902. as follows :-
' I am ordered to revert to my post as chief of staff at headquarters, and must, therefore, bid you and your gallant troops farewell. Please convey to them my hearty good wishes, and congratulate them from me on having played so distinguished and leading a part in the closing scene of the South African war, Whereby I am convinced you have contributed in a very special degree to the termination of hostilities.'
5.	I would fail in my duty to my late comrades did I omit to point out that it was chiefly due to the presence in the ranks of my late regiment of the men whose names are now submitted for the King's medal that qualified it to discharge its arduous duties in such a manner as to call forth the encomiums of superior authority.
(Sgd.) T. D. B. EVANS, Colonel, Late 0. C. 2nd C. M. Rifles.
Winnipeg, 8th March, 1903.
This petition was submitted and the unfavourable answer which X read was given. I will now answer in a few words categorically the questions asked.
On the 3rd February, 1903, the medal rolls for the King's South African medal for the 2nd regiment, Canadian Mounted Rifles were forwarded to the Governor General for transmission to the imperial authorities.
On the 11th February, 1903, the war office ruled that time occupied in transit to South Africa would not be reckoned as war service qualifying for the King's medal.
On the 8th March, Colonel Evans. C.B., late commanding the 2nd Canadian Mounted Rifles, appealed from above decision. Said appeal was transmitted to the imperial authorities, for the consideration of the commander-in-chief.
The reply (2nd May) refused the reconsideration of the former decision.
The petition was received but was not forwarded, because the question involved had already been dealt with by the War Office and decided adversely to the prayer of the petition.
Sir F. W. BORDEN.: 



RISING OF THE RICHELIEU RIVER.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Has the government received a petition from proprietors of land in the neighbourhood of St. John, P.Q., in regard to inundations of their farms by the rising of the Richelieu river ?
2.	What steps has the government taken in regard to the adoption of means of guarding said properties against said inundations ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: Yes, a petition has been received and the matter is under consideration.



STEAMBOAT SERVICE BETWEEN ST. DENIS WHARF AND MURRAY BAY.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Has the government entered into any contract in regard to the steamboat service between St. Denis wharf and Murray bay ; and if so, with whom ?
2.	Has any money been paid by the government on account of said service ; and if so, how much, and to whom ?
3.	Is the conveyance of the mails included in the conditions attached to the subsidy, or is such conveyance of mails paid for separately ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) :: 1.	No contract has been signed, but an arrangement has been made with the North American Transportation Company to run the service.
2.	No.
3.	All subsidy- contracts contain a clause requiring the carrying of such mails as are tendered by the postal authorities. For the conveyance of such mails no additional amount is paid.



QUEBEC BRIDGE.

Mr. MORIN asked :: How much has been paid to the Quebec Bridge Company to date out of the subsidy or assistance voted for it by parliament ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The amount of subsidy which has been paid on the Quebec bridge to date is 8374,353.33.



FURTHER AID FOR QUEBEC BRIDGE COMPANY.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Has the Quebec Bridge Company, or anybody on said company's behalf, applied to the government for further aid, either in money or in the form of a guarantee of said company's bonds, or in any other way ?
2.	Has the government promised any aid to said Quebec Bridge Company ; and if so, to what extent ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The matter to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) refers is now engaging the attention of the government.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. OSLER.

Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of tbe Day are called, I wish to rise to a question of privilege. In his utterances on the 31st of last month in the House of Commons, the member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) made a most cowardly attack


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I take back the word ' cowardly.' He made a very unfair attack on me, and if it had only been stated in this House and had gone no further than this House, knowing Mr. Scott, I would not have deemed it worth my while to reply to it. However, it has been made the occasion of very heavy headlines in the government organs in Toronto, the ' Star ' and the ' Globe,' accusing me of being one of a body of grafters who cleared $15,000,000, in connection with the late government, out of some western railways. I want to say that the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) some years ago made practically the same charge. I answered him then in this House very fully, and my answer has never been contradicted. I want to say that there is absolutely not a shadow of foundation on which to build that statement made and repeated in this House by the member for West Assiniboia, after I had contradicted the same statement made some years ago. when it was made by the other member (Mr. Davis). M.v connection with these two roads was purely a business one, and it was long before I was a member of parliament, and before I practically took any interest in politics. The Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway had been under charter for many years with a subsidy, and no one could be found to build it. After the North-west rebellion, the late Sir John A. Macdonald was very anxious to have that road built for political purposes, as I think we all know. The then government tried to get Mr. Onderdonk and Mr. Ross to build that road and had failed, as these gentlemen would not take it up for the subsidy and the land grant. Sir John Macdonald then asked me if I could by any chance interest people in England to raise the money to carry out that work. The charter I had nothing to do with. I had no interest directly or indirectly in the charter which belonged to some gentlemen in New Brunswick, and the late Hon. Mr. Mclnnes and some of his friends. After negotiations in England, I succeeded in raising the money by the sale of the land grant and the sale of the bonds. In that agreement it was quite understood that for five or six years that road would not be able to earn enough money to pay its interest. The bankers lending the money required an undertaking from the Canadian Pacific Railway that they would operate flint road for six years 329	.
free of charge, and a deposit was rnade with the bankers in London for the amount compounded each year to pay six per cent interest on the bonds. Since that amount has been exhausted, the bondholders have received no money, except the small interest they get from the government subsidies. To show hoyv utterly wild and reckless the statements of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) are, I may say that the whole bonded indebtedness of that road is $15,000 a mile, lower than the amount authorized, I think, on any prairie road we have chartered this year. The whole of this money, every pound of it, was spent upon the road. My firm received out of it less than the ordinary business commission-not half of what would be charged under ordinary circumstances. There was not enough money possibly to be raised to pay more than that. The bankers said:	We would give so much money
for that security, if you can get a contractor to build the road for that. The contractor secured was Mr. Jas. Ross, who had no interest in that road at all. Mr. Jas. Ross, as contractor, built that road, and he was paid his estimates as they went along, and his interest in the road ceased when the contract ceased, just the same as in the case of any ordinary contractor.
Resulting from that, Mr. Ross looked into the Calgary and Edmonton Railway. About that time there was a charter in existence covering the Calgary and Edmonton Railway and carrying a land grant of 12,400 acres per mile. That charter for that railway was hawked about from one end of this continent to the other. It was submitted in England, trying to raise money to build the road, and the effort was unsuccessful. Subsequently, a new charter was obtained by some people-I was not one of them-with a grant of 6,400 acres per mile and $80,000 a year for twenty years in lieu of government service. The government retained one-third of the land grant to protect them against any deficiency in case the railway had not earned $80,000 a year through government business during that time. The government still own that land grant, and I have no hesitation in saying that that land grant covers all that the railway company owes the government. The road was financed in precisely the same manner as I have described in connection with the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway. Five million five hundred thousand dollars were raised in cash by the sale of the land and of the bonds. I myself took nearly $200,000 in these bonds, paying par for them. These bonds I have held and they have been down to twenty-five cents on the dollar since that day. Now they are at a better rate because of the improved conditions of the road. I may mention that the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan bonds are quoted in the market to-day at about sixty cents



on tlie dollar, so that I did not get very rich on that transaction ; in fact I think It was unfortunate for me. The Calgary and Edmonton Railway was, as I have said, financed precisely in the same way hy the sale of the bonds. I should judge that so far from any of the members from the North-west finding fault with the financing of these two roads, they should hold them up as an example, and as an absolute contrast to any other road that has been built in the North-west as a branch or a small concern. I say that for this reason, that these two roads were built for honest cash put into them


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member will, I suppose, conclude with a motion, because I think the question of privilege is exhausted now', and we are entering into a discussion.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes, I will conclude with a motion. Every dollar that went into the construction of the road was paid in cash. There were no arrears or wages, there were no debts on the road. Contrast that with any other road that was constructed in the North-west at that time. Every one of these branches or small concerns failed when they got partly constructed, leaving debts to tradesmen, to contractors and to labourers. The Manitoba and North-western, the North-west Central, the old Hudson's Bay Railway, and in fact every branch road failed until they came into the hands of strong companies. Some of these roads which are now controlled by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann receive precisely the same bonus that was given to the two roads with which I was connected, namely, a land grant of 6,400 acres per mile, and so many thousand dollars a year for twenty years.
I defy any man in this House or in this country to put his finger upon one single transaction in connection with the building and financing of these two roads, that is not absolutely straightforward and honourable. And so far as my being ashamed of my connection with these two roads, I think that I can point, and my firm can point, with a great deal of pride, to these difficult undertakings that we successfully financed; and the latter, financed at the time of the Baring failure, a time of great financial crisis in Great Britain. I am not aware of having in any shape or way made myself disagreeable to these members from the North-west. I do not know why they should go out of their way to make statements, which one can hardly believe they didn't know to be absolutely false, because they had been denied before. I can only challenge the gentleman who made the statement, or any gentleman in this House, to produce one single fact in relation to my connection with these two roads, which I may not be proud of.	.
When I was connected with those roads, I was not in any shape or way in politics.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I had nothing to do with the chartering of those roads. I took charge of the financing purely and simply as a matter of business, and as a matter of business I think they were very successfully carried out ; and all the people connected with them will testify that I looked after their interests solely, and that the money that was expended on the roads was expended absolutely under their direction, and not under the direction of the men having charge of the financing. The capital stock of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway was $200,000, and that of the Calgary and Edmonton $1,000,000. If you add these two sums together, you will not have more than half the amount of the sum which I am accused of robbing the country of. The whole of the money which I have mentioned as having been' raised was put into these two roads. I hope that the papers will give this statement as much prominence as they gave the charge aginst me, made by the hon. member for West Assiniboia. That charge was printed with great prominence, with startling headlines, which were very misleading to any who might not read the speech in full.


Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to make a remark in reply to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, I might say that it is regrettable that the hon. member has not read the actual words I used, but has taken the perhaps not quite accurate reports of my statement in the newspapers. I took pains to state on that occasion that I was making no reflection at all upon the junior member for West Toronto, but was merely making before the House a comparison of the railway legislation proposed by the government at the present time with certain railway legislation which had been put through parliament by previous governments. Unfortunately, I had not the privilege this morning of hearing the full statement or explanation made by the hon. gentleman, and I am not quite aware whether he challenged the figures I placed before the House the other evening. These were not voluminous, and it will take me only a moment or two to go over them again. The Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway was stocked for $201,000, and was bonded for $3,809,140. The total debt upon the road is therefore $4,010,140. The total cost of the railway, as shown by the records left in the Department of Railways and Canals by the previous government, was $2,539,600. I made no reflection, as I state, upon the hon. gentleman. He has taken pains, since I came into the House, to deny that there was anything in the building of these roads not entirely straightforward. I made no such accusation against the promoters of these roads or against the hon. gentleman ; but in view of these figures, I think the hon. gentleman is going a considerable length in

boasting that none of the labourers or contractors on these roads lost any money or failed to receive their wages or their pay. I say that the total money raised in connection with that one road was $4,010,140, and the total cost was only $2,539,600, leaving a balance in the pockets of the promoters, after they had paid all the contractors and labourers, of $1,470,000. Surely there is no great reason to be found in these figures for the boast that the labourers and contractors did not fail to receive their pay. In addition to that there was a land grant given in connection with the Prince Albert Road of 1,619,200 acres. I put the value of this the other evening at $2 per acre, and I understand that the company was able a little over a year ago to sell the lands at that figure to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company. I gave the value of the land at $2,238,400. I regret to find that 1 made a little error there-a little matter of $1,000,000. The value of the land grant is $3,238,400 ; but, of course, a little matter of $1,000,000 in the total amount of the improper profits which these promoters obtained out of these roads does not amount to very much after all. Then, I gave the amount of the subsidy of $80,000 a year for twenty years at $1,600,000, and I said that over and above the cost of the road, it appeared that the promoters got away with $5,30S,940. The accurate figure is $6,308,940. That is the history, as I stated, of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway. The history of the Calgary and Edmonton is very similar. May I ask the hon. gentleman, as I did not hear his statement this morning, if he denies any of these figures ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes, I deny them absolutely. I can quite understand that the hon. gentleman, making the statement he does, brings the figures out as he has done now. He assumes that the money was not put into the road, and that the $80,000 a year is still going to the promoters, though it has been assigned to the bondholders. The company does not own all the land ; the government possess one-third of the land. The lands of the company and the bonds were sold, and they produced $3,700,000. The contract for the road was $2,500,000. The bondholders, as I have stated, insisted on having a deposit which would pay them 6 per cent interest on their bonds for six years. That money was got by selling the bonds and the land grant to produce that $3,700,000.


Mr. DAVIS.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I merely wish to ask to whom was the land sold ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I state again that every dollar that was raised by the sale of the lands and the bonds was put into the road-
$2,500,000 into construction and $1,000,000 or $1,250,000 with the bank in London to provide for the interest. It may be quite true that the people who bought that land bought it at the nominal value of a dollar an acre; but they held it for thirteen years, and were only able to sell it this year. The men composing the Lonk Lake Land Company are all over England ; and if that land had gone up to $10 an acre, that would have nothing to do with the original cost; that cannot be controlled by anybody. But what I state is that the whole amo,unt for which the two roads were bonused went into the cost of the roads. The money was deposited with two bankers, one of whom was Morton, Rose & Company, it was then, for the security of the bondholders, and for six years the bondholders were paid 6 per cent interest. Since then they had nothing on the Qu'Appelle and Long Lake except the 2 per cent from government subsidy which was assigned to Morton. On the Caigary and Edmonton, after the amount paid on that was exhausted, the bondholders only received one year 2 per cent, other years 1 per cent, and in the past year, owing to the prosperous times, 4 per cent. All these contracts were made with the approval and sanction of the government, and the government has copies of them in the department here. The statements I make can also be verified by writing the bankers, Morton, Grenville and Chapman, successors to Morton, Rose & Company. The figures I give are absolutely correct. I make the statement that the promoters of that road did not get even an ordinary commission on a business transaction, and that there never was a business transaction put through in this country more creditable to all 'concerned.


Thomas Walter Scott: Does the hon. gentleman deny the accuracy of the figures I quoted ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. gentleman said that there was a difference of a million and a half which the promoters put into their pockets. I deny that absolutely.


Thomas Walter Scott: My question is whether or not the figures I quoted are accurate.. Does he deny those figures ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do.


Thomas Walter Scott: They are from the blue-books. They are mattei-s left on record in the Department of Railways and Canals by the Conservative government before 1896.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I hope that the hon. gentleman will be fair, as this is a personal matter, and I am stating what is absolutely correct. He talks about $200,000 of stock and he assumes that the $200,000 was put in in cash. I assure him it was not put in in cash. Capital stock in those days and to-day is seldom put in in cash. There is nothing in the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway providing that the

capital stock should he paid for in cash. I gave the figures, and if the hon. gentleman chooses to distort them I cannot help that.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. gentleman has spoken all around the figures. I want him to say whether or not the figures which 1 took the trouble of reading a few evenings ago from the records of this government are correct. There was another little matter in which the hon. gentleman was interested, known as the North-west town sites scandal. I asked him on this floor one eveniug whether he denied the matter which appeared in the report of certain commissioners appointed to look into the case of the Northwest town sites. He denied most emphatically and absolutely everything that appeared in the report of those commissioners, yet the whole of that report consists of sworn evidence, given by residents of the territories, some of them political friends of the hon. gentleman. Certain statements made by my hon. friend do certainly take away from the seriousness of the position, as I explained it the other evening. But even giving him full credit for every piece of explanation he has been able to make, there are still left in this transaction very enormous profits to the promoters of these two railway companies, of which my hon. friend admits he is one.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I was not a promoter of either. I deny it absolutely.


Thomas Walter Scott: Was the hon. gentleman not interested and associated in the building of these two roads ? The explanation he has already made absolutely places him in that position. Let me just a moment or two


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has made a statement which the hon. member for West Toronto distinctly and emphatically denied, and now the hon. gentleman is attempting to reiterate the statement. Is he not bound to accept it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: When a statement is made by an hon. member on a matter affecting him personally, every other member must accept it. Therefore the hon. member for Assiniboia will have to accept the statement of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) regarding the question of promotion.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am bound to accept any statement made by any hon. gentleman on a personal matter, but what I was pointing out was that, by his explanation of the facts, the hon. gentleman has put himself in the position of one who was associated with certain others in the building of two lines of railway. The Calgary and Edmonton road issued common stock to the extent of $1,000,000 and bonds to the extent of $5,474,573, making a total indebtedness of $0,474,513. My hon. friend said he never


Edmund Boyd Osler: did anything to earn the enmity of the members or the people of the North-west Territories. Why, certainly not. The people of the North-west Territories, or the members at all events, have not the slightest enmity towards my hon. friend, but when he takes credit to himself and his associates for having conferred any great benefits on the people of the North-west Territories, he is going a great deal further than the occasion justifies. There is a debt on the Calgary and Edmonton Railway, through the efforts of my hon. friend and his associates, of - $6,474,513. But the whole cost of that road, as shown by the reports in the Railway Department, was only $3,573,562, showing an excess of debt over cost of $2,730,951, which is a burden on that road and on the struggling settlers who have to pay freight rates sufficiently high to enable the company to meet the interest at the rate of six per cent. The land grant was about 1,888,000 acres. My hon. friend from Alberta says that the company sold no land for less than $3 an acre and this year they are selling lands at $4 and $5 and higher, and within that area are several town sites, the lots in which sell at a figure very much in excess of $3. But taking $3 as the price, you have on the land grant of 1,888,000 acres $5,664,000. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the land was sold at the time of the construction of the railway. The land of the Prince Albert branch was only sold last year to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Corporation at 82 per acre. The company was given a subsidy of $80,000 per year for twenty years, which makes $1,600,000. This shows a total profit on the Calgary and Edmonton of $9,994,951. Let me repeat the figures :
Calgary and Edmonton.
Stocked for	$1,000,000
Bonded for	 5,474,513*
Total debt	$6,474,513
Cost	 [DOT][DOT]	 [DOT] [DOT] 3,743,562
Amount in somebody's pockets	$2,730,951
Land grant, 1,888,000 acres, at $3
per acre	 5,664,000
$80,000 subsidy for 20 years	 1,600,000
Total profits	$9,994,951
* At 6 per cent
Add to that the profits on the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan, amounting to $6,308,940 and you have a total profit of $16,303,891
My hon. friend by his explanation, says that those interested in these railways-he does not wish them to be called promoters- those who obtained the legislation from the Conservative government, did not obtain the full advantages shown by these figures, but suppose we cut the amount down by one-half, you will still have a sum of about $8,000,000, or more than one-half the outside amount which the Grand Trunk Pacific

is going to cost the people during the next fifty years. As regards the advantage to the territory from the building of these lines, the Saskatchewan valley would have been much better developed by the continuing of the Manitoba and North-west Railway from Portage la Prairie to the Saskatchewan valley from east to west, and the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) will be able to show the House that the freight on wheat charged on that line from Regina to Prince Albert is 29 cents per hundred pounds. That has been the charge ever since that railway was constructed.
Twenty-nine cents per 100 pounds. I venture to say that when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is constructed there the people in the neighbourhood of Prince Albert will have the advantage of a freight rate not more than 60 per cent of that amount. I pointed out that these roads had failed to effect the purpose, for which they were intended, had failed to develop the Saskatchewan valley, which was tapped by these roads at only two points. And the people who were interested in the construction of these roads, by their success in their application to this parliament when the Conservative party was in power, blocked for ten years the extension of the Manitoba and North-western Railway. Why did they come down here to agitate for the construction of these roads when, by the extension of the Manitoba and North-western Railway, the Saskatchewan valley could have been quickly and successfully opened ? Because the Manitoba and North-western in those days was in the hands of people not so closely allied with the Conservative party ; the Manitoba and North-western pebple could not be squeezed out of their holdings at that time. Then other action was taken; these other roads were built from the south to the north to tap the Saskatchewan valley.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I rise to a point of order. I do not think that on a question of privilege, in which the hon. junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) refers to a statement that he was one of those who made a profit of $15,000,000 and was a grafter, it is open to my hon. friend to discuss the question of freight rates and other matters connected with the administration of that particular railway. I do not think it is in order; this Is a matter of privilege, and discussion should be confined strictly to the question of privilege.


Thomas Walter Scott: I understood that my hon. friend moved that the House do adjourn.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With regard to the motion to adjourn, 1 may say'that when a motion to adjourn is made the question which is to be discussed is the question which is brought up by the member who makes that motion and the discussion should not go outside of that question.


Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. Speaker, I am within your judgment if I am not speaking strictly to that question. I am speaking of the effect of the building of these two lines of railway ; and I was explaining that one effect of their construction was the blocking for ten years of the extension of the Manitoba and North-western Railway.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am afraid that is going a little outside the question. I understood that the motion of the hon. junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) was concerning his connection with those railways, and I think then we should not enter upon the discussion of the whole question of freight rates on these railways.


Thomas Walter Scott: I was endeavouring to keep myself strictly to the discussion of the connection of my hon. friend with these roads, and to the result of liis connection with them, and I say that one of the worst results of this and of the building of these lines of railway was the blocking for ten years of the extension of the Manitoba and North-western, and it is the opinion of the people of the west that the reason why the Manitoba and North-western was thus blocked at that time was that the owners of the Manitoba aud North-western could not at that time be squeezed out of their holdings. Because they could not be squeezed out, other action was taken, they were in time squeezed out, and I understand my hon. friend the junior member for West Toronto now stands in the position of one of the chief holders also of the Manitoba and North-western. Let me repeat again, I have not made any personal reflection on my hon. friend. I said distinctly that I understood he was perfectly right in getting all he could get so long as he did not transgress the law. He simply took advantage of the law put on the statute-book when the Conservative party was in office. I am bound to say that when it can be shown that an hon. member of this House at some previous time in his career has profited to such an enormous extent through the Canadian Pacific Railway, through the Calgary and Edmonton Railway, through the Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway, through his connection with town sites in the North-west and other matters for which the Conservative government was responsible, when he and his associates have profited to such an enormous extent, to the extent of millions of dollars through legislation placed upon the statute-books, it ill-becomes him to come down to this House, as the hon. gentleman has done in the last few years, and take the position that no more subsidies should be granted, that no more of the people's money should be expended for the construction of railways. That seems to put him in this position-I make no direct charge-to put him in this position, that he and his associates having got their clutches firmly upon Manitoba

and the North-west Territories, he does not wish to see any other railways, independent or competing railways, constructed there to give the people of those provinces the benefit of competition. He and his associates seem to take the position that they must be left for ever with their clutches on the people of Manitoba and the west, so as to be able to charge rates at their own sweet will and to tax the people of that country as they have done during the last twenty years.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I wish to say a few words with reference to this discussion. I asked the bon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), while he was speaking on this question, to whom the lands were sold. I understood him to say that the land received in connection with the Regina, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway was sold, along with the bonds. I do not doubt the hon. gentleman's word, but it seems to me very strange that this land was sold twelve years ago and that I myself, not twelve months ago, bought some of it from the firm with which the bon. gentleman is connected, the firm of Osier, Hammond & Nanton. The hon. gentleman has stated that when a railway was built he had nothing to do with political matters, but at the time this railway was projected we who live at Prince Albert went to the expense of sending a delegation down here to press for the extension of the Manitoba and North-western Railway. The hon. gentleman who then represented Saskatchewan in the interest of the Conservative party in this House made that application and the delegation were told not to say a word about the Manitoba and North-western Railway, that it would be all fixed up, and that friends of the government had hold of the matter and were going to have two other lines built into that country. As has been well pointed out by the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), had the Manitoba and North-western Railway been extended at that time, there would not now be the necessity for subsidizing the Canadian Northern Railway, and the development that is now taking place in that country would have taken place thirteen years ago. Rut, as I said before, when our delegation came down to press for (he extension of the Manitoba and North-western Railway they were told: Do not say a word about it ; close friends of the government have taken up that proposition and are going to put it through-and it was put through. My hon. friend beside me suggests that the firm of Osier, Hammond & Nanton could not wait. This proposition was put through, these gentlemen voted this cash subsidy for this railway, and when these parties got the right to build their railway, how did they treat the settlers in that country? Let me point out to you how they made money. When they came to Sas-Mr. SCOTT.
katoon they found a town which had been built up by the settlers. Did they go into the town? No, they shunted across the river and built a town of their own and the golden shekels are now flowing into the pockets of the company from that new town. When they came to the town of Duck Lake did they enter it ? No, they went two miles away, built a town of their own and ruined the people of Duck Lake, and the golden shekels are now running into their pockets from that town site. When they got to Prince Albert they did not go into that town, which had been there for years and which had over 1,500 inhabitants. until the people gave up to them one-lialf of their property, and no doubt ah the present time the golden streams are flowing into the pockets of that company from the money they are realizing from that town site.
They say that the land was sold as a bond. Why, the land has been and is being sold by the firm of Osier, Hammond & Smith, in Winnipeg, right up to the last year, and the whole of it was sold last year to a company called the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company for a certain figure, and that sale was made by the firm of Osier, Hammond & Smith. Now, I do not know how much that firm realized out of it, but there is a general impression in the west that they made a pretty good thing out of it. AH we object to is that when we propose to give subsidies to build roads, a gentleman connected with this institution gets up in this House and protests against any more subsidies being given to assist in opening up and developing territory. I say, as suggested by my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), that these gentlemen made a good thing" out of it, and now when other people want to get railways built through that country to open it up, we object to these gentlemen getting up and protesting against subsidies hpingl given for that purpose after they have filled their own pockets.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I quite understand the object of this attack. The member for Assiniboia says, and the member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Davis) supports him in saying, that I have made a false statement when I say that these lands were sold at the time the railway was built and the bonds were sold. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that these lands were sold at the time the bonds were sold, they were sold to an English company.


Thomas Walter Scott: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? If it is a fact that the lands of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Company were sold a year ago, how is it that as late as two years ago the company were refusing to accept lands from the government and the government brought suit in the Exchequer Court about the matter ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Surely any one can understand that. The purchasers bought these lands under the conditions that they were granted to the railwa3r company, and they considered that the lands offered by the government did not come up to those conditions, and they employed solicitors to enforce the bargain. Many of the lands have not passed from the government and have not been accepted. 1 make the statement that the lands were sold at the time, they were sold with the bonds in both cases, and the whole of the money that was raised from the sale of these lands and bonds went into the road and paid interest on the bonds. There was no money made except the ordinary profit made by the contractor-
I do not know how much Mr. James Ross made out of his contract. The Englishman supplied the funds and he got part of the land, $12,000 or $13,000 a mile, for building the road. I do not know how much he made out of it, and it is not my business.
I was acting simply as an agent. Let me refer to the attack which the hon. gentleman made gratuitously upon me in connection with the town sites. I, with Lord Strathcona and Mr. Angus, have been trustees for the town sites, partly on government land, for nearly twenty years. A commission was appointed to make an investigation and they brought in a report stating that we owed the government so much money. That is some years ago. The trustees disputed absolutely and entirely that report. We have been the trustees from that time to this, and have endeavoured to get the government to come to a settlement by sueing us, and the government refused to do it. but they keep the question open in order that gentlemen like these may make attacks upon me in the House. Let them make an attack upon Lord Strathcona and upon Mr. Angus, who were trustees with me. The Prime Minister, I think, won't get up and make such an assertion, but it is men of that character-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I apologize-members from the west who make that accusation. I say that to-day my solicitor and the solicitors of the Canadian Pacific Railway are pressing the government, and have been pressing the government for four years past, to bring this dispute to a conclusion regarding these town sites, and the government are delaying to do so for a purpose.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman, the leader of the government, approves of this style of attack made by the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) upon my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) ; I presume he does not. I think I may say that the hon. gentleman from Assiniboia went out of his way in making the charge which he did, and in using the words which
he did the other evening in regard to my hon. friend from West Toronto. My hon. friend from West Toronto needs no certificate of character from me or from any of his colleagues. He is known from one end of the country to the other, and is respected for his honesty and in every way. He has lived all his life in the city of Toronto, and has been twice elected to this House by the riding of West Toronto. His firm to which hon. gentlemen opposite have alluded occupy as high a position in this country as any other firm in a similar business. Therefore, I say the hon. gentleman went out of his way in using the language he did in regard to my hon. friend. You must remember, Sir. that this hon. gentleman employed tactics similar to these in regard to the hon. member for Peel when he brought affidavits into this House to discredit the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) and he was entirely out of order in reading these affidavits.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman is referring to a previous debate.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, I will not say anything further then with regard to that. However, my hon. friend from West Toronto, in all these transactions, has enjoyed the highest reputation, and his friends have the utmost confidence in him, and it is a surprise to them and a surprise to him, ho doubt, to find that a transaction fourteen years old should have been brought up in this House the other night and discussed in the manner that it has been.


Thomas Walter Scott: The results of the transaction are still present in the North-west Territories.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. gentleman from West Toronto referred to the reports, and the way the newspapers of this country have taken advantage of the statement made by the member for Assiniboia to throw discredit upon my hon. friend. A report of that day's proceedings in the House was headed in one of the Toronto papers : ' Charges against Mr. Osier, M.P., that he profited by government concessions. Mr. Scott's speech on the Grand Trunk Pacific question.' That was the heading of a discussion covering many columns in the ' Globe.' I do not know whether that was the object of my hon. friend or not ; if it was, I think he was very unfair. I think that tlie members of this House ought to be governed by the same rules that govern gentlemen outside the House, they ought to be governed by rules just as strict. There are certain things that we grant each other as gentlemen outside this House, and inside this House, and I think hon. members ought to be governed by the same rules of etiquette that govern the conduct of gentlemen outside the House. The bom gentleman who preceded me said that per-

haps this report was misunderstood, and that perhaps my hon. friend did not understand it in the way it was intended, and he asked my hon. friend from West Toronto if he had read his remarks. Now, this is what the hon. gentleman said the other night:
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, who said he would like to >see one of these individuals spoken of as grafters. It seems to me that if we could put our linger on the gentleman who got away with these $15,000,000, 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, to 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 15,000,000 odd dollars.
Now, if the hon. gentleman says there is nothing personal in that, I do not understand -what the English language means. I say it is most unjustifiable, and I appeal to the right hon. leader of the government


Thomas Walter Scott: Does the hon. gentleman deny the truth of It ?


Albert Edward Kemp: Do I deny the truth of it ? I have every confidence in the statement of my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier). I believe every word he has said is true in regard to this matter. I will not take up the time of the House any longer in regard to this. I do not consider that there ever has been a more unjustifiable or a more unfair attack made upon any hon. member of this House than that which the hon. member for West Assiniboia has made upon the hon. member for West Toronto.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: Mr. Speaker, I think it is an unfortunate custom that has grown up in this House during the past few years to refer to newspaper reports and to use them in the House, even when I have felt that the hon. members referring to them knew that they could not possibly be true


Albert Edward Kemp: I am referring to what appeared in ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When these newspaper reports involve a personal attack upon an hon. member of this House, the member making use of them could at least ascertain whether there was any foundation for the statements contained in them. It is unfortunate that during the past few years this custom has been so prevalent in this House. I do not occupy Mr. KEMP.
the time of the House very much, but while I sit here I hear one member after another get up and make use of some matter which had appeared in a newspaper, and which apparently had been written for the purpose of being used in such an improper manner. We also hear letters being read in this House for the purpose of making attacks upon members of the House. My hon. friend referred to one which was brought up in this House and which made a dastardly attack upon respectable men who had never made any money out of their connec-tiou with politics. I think we should all be gratified to know that we have in this country enterprising citizens who have had the ability and energy to take up large public enterprises and assist them forward. It is no discredit to a citizen who does so. He should not be singled out as one of the chief sinners against whom insinuations, innuendoes and attacks are to be directed, nor should it be recklessly charged that his motives are Improper. My hon. friend (Mr. Osier) must remember that unless he changes his methods In regard to this matter, he can hardly expect that the circumstances which have given rise to this discussion will not be referred to. I simply rose for the purpose of expressing, as a member of this House, my view that the practice of reading newspaper reports and letters is a most objectionable one.


Albert Edward Kemp: This Is ' Hansard.' The hon. minister is under a misapprehension. I am reading the very words that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) uttered as reported in ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was not referring to the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), but I will say frankly, and leave it to the House and to the country whether I am right or not, that the hon. members from Toronto are perhaps the greatest sinners in this respect. When the Orders of the Day are called, or when the Order is reached to go into supply, matters of privilege are brought up based on some rumours that they have seen in newspapers.


Albert Edward Kemp: What does the hon. minister refer to ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 refer to this, that for a great many years, long before my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) was a member of this House and since, news-pa per reports along the line of the remarks that were made in this House against my hon. friend were constantly quoted, and I think if he would turn up the columns of the ' Mail ' newspaper he would find the most bitter attack on my hon. friend that ever appeared anywhere, or, at least, since he was a member, along those lines, and It is from these newspaper attacks, I suppose, that these statements have originated in this House. I think it is due to the good conduct of this House, as well as in the



19D3

[Stage Direction]
public interest, that hon. members should be careful to verify these statements, and that they should at least have respect enough for themselves, for the country and for their colleagues, to be very sure of the facts before they bring forward newspaper reports in this House and make statements that they must know are not true. What have we heard during the last week ? Instead of a dignified and businesslike discussion of the question before the House, we have had most bitter personal attacks made upon a gentleman from Toronto, an enterprising citizen. I doubt very much if hon. members who have attacked this gentleman will get up and say that he is guilty of any dishonourable conduct in respect to his connection with public enterprises. Still, we have one after another getting up and reading newspaper reports referring to this gentleman in the most discreditable manner. I say it is not in keeping with the dignity of the House or the public interest that this should be done. I am quite willing to admit that if a member of this House, or if any citizen, has committed an act that is improper he should be criticised, but no respectable citizen should be unfairly attacked because he is connected with a public enterprise, the prosecution of which is in the public interest. It may be that it is quite within the right of any hon. member to do so, but for one hon. gentleman after another to get up and attack Senator Cox without any justification, is a most unreasonable and discreditable proceeding on the part of those hon. members. I think we should be proud to know that we have citizens who take a part in large public enterprises, and we ought to be careful before we make insinuations and innuendoes against those men, who are amongst our best citizens. There ought to be some reason before such attacks as these can be made, and I hope that my hon. friend (Mr. Osier), who no doubt feels aggrieved at the statements which have been made in regard to himself, will realize how unfortunate it is that this custom has grown up to such an extent on both sides of the House. I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that it is a custom which should not be continued.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, that very nice little bit of a scold may be interesting to the House, but I cannot see that it will answer any good purpose. As to the propriety of the conduct of hon. members of this House, each one individually will try to govern himself according to the rules of the House and according to his own judgment ; but it seems to me that the hon. gentleman's statement is specially inapplicable in this case when you come to consider it. If it were a question of newspaper rumour that had no foundation in fact being used as the basis of an attack upon an bon. member of this House, then there might be some justification for the advice gratuitously given the
House by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). Does the hon. gentleman deny the right or privilege of any hon. member here to defend his own character or conduct when it is improperly, untruthfully and unjustly assailed ? If this particular case happened to be one based only upon newspaper rumour, then there might be some justification for his remarks, but the very fact that the newspaper rumour is founded upon a statement made in this House, and which is recorded in ' Hansard,' and which deliberately declares that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) had profited by the swag with others to the extent of $15,000,000, gives an entirely different complexion to the matter. My hon. friend from West Toronto availed himself of the undoubted right and privilege which every hon. member of this House has to set that matter straight, and to do that he was necessarily obliged to make an explanation of the whole transaction. I thought he put it so clearly to the House that every hon. member would at once accept it, but the hon. member for West As-siniboia (Mr. Scott) did not accept it, but rather endeavoured, as I think, to justify the unfair charge that he had made. Does the hon. minister who has just taken his seat say that the hon. member for West Toronto was wrong in trying to defend his own character, reputation and veracity ? If he does, then his scold may be in point.


Thomas Walter Scott: I made no charge except such as can be based upon the records of the Railways and Canals Department. Every figure I quoted is on record there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman says he made no charge, but is it not a charge to talk about swag as follows ?
My hon. friend from West Elgin will remember that one evening here he read a letter from some one in Vancouver, I think, who said he would like to see one of the individuals spoken of as grafters. It seems to me that if we could put our finger on the gentleman who got away With this $15,000,000- '	'
Was that not a charge ?
-we would find a grafter under our finger.
Then he goes on to explain who that gentleman was.
I would advise my hon. friend from West Elgin to cast his eye down' to the seat just four rows in front of him, to the seat of the hon. the 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 fot away with this $15,000,000.
If that is not a charge, I do not understand the meaning of the English language.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that not a charge against which any hon. member, on a ques-
10515 '

tion of privilege, has a right to defend himself ? And when the hon. member has done so, the hon. member for West Assiniboia has not the courtesy in him to accept it, and to say no more about it, but on the contrary lie' makes an effort to justify his language. Then the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon, Mr. Sutherland) refers to it as a frivolous matter and as a mere newspaper rumour outside of this House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Why do you misrepresent what I said ? I did not say anything of the kind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why did the Minister of Public Works get up to read a lecture to the hon. member for West Toronto and to this House, and when the hon. member (Mr. Osier) referred to what was not a mere newspaper rumour, but a statement made by a member of this House with all the responsibility that attaches to his position, and recorded in ' Hansard,' and a matter of history as to what took place in this House


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman knows that I did not read him a lecture. What I did was to express my regret that these newspaper articles should be used in the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Public Works said that we were wasting the time of -the Hfouse because this matter was brought up.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never said a word about wasting the time of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it was proper for the member for West Toronto to defend his character, why should the hon. gentleman and the House be read a lecture by the Minister of Public Works? If the hon. member (Mr. Osier) neglected to call attention to the matter, lie would be neglecting his duty to himself and to his constituents. Here we have a statement recorded in ' Hansard ' as made by a member of this House, and every word in that statement is just as strong as every word in the newspapers including the headings. The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) has done what was eminently proper. He would fail in his duty if he did not set himself right and give the member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) an opportunity to withdraw the assertion he has made.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think it is about time that this unfortunate incident should come to a conclusion, and it ought to come to a conclusion in a manner which should be accepted by members of both sides of the House. Sly hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), some few days ago, made a statement, comparing the contract which is now before the House with the contract which was made by a former government, and he brought in as a matter


Thomas Simpson Sproule: of comparison the Long Lake, Qu'Appelle and Saskatchewan Railway, as to which he showed by the records of the government that funds bad been provided to the amount of $4,000,000, whereas only $2,500,000 had been expended ; $1,500,000 going into somebody's pockets. He said that he thought that these profits had gone to the promoters, and my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) very properly vindicated himself, and stated that lie was not one of the promoters and that not one dollar of that money had gone into his pockets. That statement is conclusive. There is nothing more to say upon that. My hon. friend (Mr. Osier) is exonerated from the charge of unduly profiting from the system that then prevailed, but some one else did profit by it. Therefore the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) holds good, that the method formerly followed is not as good as the method followed by this government. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) is a respectable citizen, he is a respectable member of the community and the moment that he has given his word, even if he were not a member of this House, that is enough, and the matter should not go further. But so far as the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) is concerned, it still remains the same. The only thing he had in view was to compare the present contract


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.
The 1 xvIME MINISTER. Yes, I cannot see that my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) had anything else in view than to say with regard to the contract before the House :	here is
a contract under which nothing goes to the promoters, while in former times under other governments there were contracts in which undue profits went to the promoters. No one can deny that in this matter of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway, one and a half million dollars of profits went into somebody's hands which did not go into the road.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would my right hon. friend allow me to interrupt him. I thought I had made myself quite clear to every one in this House, and I am sure the Prime Minister would be the last man in this House to make a statement which is not correct. What I said and what I repeat is: That the difference between that two and a half million dollars, the contract price, and the amount of the bonds, was paid into the bankers in London to meet the interest on these bonds for six years. That money did not go into the hands of promoters or into the hands of contractors, but it went into the hands of bankers in London and it was held in trust, and for six years thereafter the Qu'Appelle and Long Lake bond holders were paid six per cent. It was exhausted in six years, and from that time to this the bondholders have got nothing except the interest paid by the government. The same applies to the Calgary and

Edmonton. I know the Prime Minister will accept my statement and I can assure him that it can be verified by the trustees at any moment. Not one dollar of that money, the capital, went into the hands of promoters or any one connected with it. It was all paid out for the construction of the road and deposited for the interest for six years.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I accept without any reservation the statement of my bon. friend (Mr. Osier) that he did not profit in any way, but when it comes to a question as to whether or not some one else did not profit, I must take issue with my hon. friend. However, that is not a matter personal to him ; it is a matter outside of this House. I do not think any person in this House profited, but if my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) takes that ground that no undue profits were taken out of the transaction, I cannot agree with him. However, that is not the matter at issue. The matter at issue is simply a personal matter as to the honour of my hon. friend (Mr. Osier), and as to that, his statement is enough and there should not be one word more to say upon it.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: I was not in the House the other day when this matter was brought up, and I can only depend upon the record which ' Hansard ' presents to us of the proceedings which then took place. I would not have risen now were it not for the lecture that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) felt it his duty to deliver to the members for Toronto. If we make any unfair statement in this House, we are responsible for it, and we are also responsible to the constituents whom we represent. So far as we are concerned we have endeavoured to represent our constituents to the very best of our ability, and in doing so we have avoided any breach of the rules of the House. If in matters affecting the interests of our constituents, we were not to bring to the attention of the House, reports printed in Toronto papers, in order to see if there is any foundation for them, we would be derelict in discharging the duties we are sent here to discharge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Written for the purpose of being brought up to slander some one.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman says these articles are written on purpose.
The MINISTER OF PUBmC WORKS. So they are.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of course, as the Minister of Public Works would not make a statement of that kind unless he knew he was speaking the truth, and if he knows that these articles were written purposely to be brought up in this House, he is not discharging his duty as a member of this House, if lie does not state by whom these articles
were written and by whom they were printed. So far as I am concerned I have never suggested the printing of any article, and I have never written any article for the purpose of having it brought up in this House, nor do I know of any article ever having been written for such a purpose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You are not the only member for Toronto.
Mr. CLARKE, I admit that, but speaking for myself I repel the insinuation that I ever did in any shape or form what the Minister of Public Works has suggested. But, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention and the attention of the House to the fact that this is the second or third time that my hon. colleague from West Toronto has been attacked in this House because of his connection with the Calgary and Edmonton and the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railways. Attacks have been made upon him on two occasions in his absence, one of them several years ago; and he has acted within his right in giving an emphatic denial to the statements made. What lias he asserted to be the fact with regard to his connection with these railways ? In the first place, he has said-and no hon. gentleman has contradicted the statement-that he had no connection whatever with those who obtained these charters from parliament. Will any hon. gentleman deny the accuracy of that statement ? He says further that he had no connection with those who obtained the land grants in connection with the building of these roads. No hon. gentleman has denied the accuracy of that statement. He says further that after many futile attempts had been made by those who had obtained the charters and the land grants to secure the construction of these railways, he was asked by those parties to undertake the floating of these enterprises. He was asked, because of his high reputation and the high reputation of his firm as financial agents, to undertake the work of raising the necessary funds to enable these roads to be built. He went to the old country, and through the influence which he possessed there, and through the confidence which capitalists had in him. he made the necessary financial arrangements by which both of these roads were built. He has declared that in making these financial arrangements and in disposing of the bonds necessary for building the roads, the land grants were sold at the same time. He has further declared that every dollar raised by him was put into the construction of the roads or was set apart to provide for the payment of interest. He has also said that his firm received only a very small commission on the work performed from those who desired to get these roads constructed. As these statements have not been denied, as they cannot be denied-because any person who knows my hon. colleague knows that he would not

make a misstatement in a matter of this kind-surely this ouglit to be the last of these scandals to be brought up in this House against him. There has been another charge made, supplemental to those to which I have referred, that is, that the firm of my hon. colleague is selling the lands referred to. Is there any crime in that ? Has that firm not a right to engage in business pursuits in the North-west or in any other part of Canada ? Is there any charge that that firm is selling these lands under false pretenses ? I think my hon. friend has only done his full duty in calling attention to these charges, and asking that they be withdrawn. He has given them an emphatic denial, and I hope that the hon. member for West Assiniboia will withdraw every accusation that would tend to impeach the honour and integrity of my hon. friend.


Thomas Walter Scott: Does my hon. friend insinuate that any crime has been charged against his colleague ? I took pains to state the other evening that I cast no aspersion upon him and charged no crime against him, except his connection with these matters of improper legislation, for which the Conservative government and not my hon. friend is responsible.


Edward Frederick Clarke: With the permission of the House, I will just read what the hon. gentleman is reported to have said, and then leave it to the judgment of the House whether he made any charge or not:
My hon. friend from West Elgin will remember that one evening here he read a letter from some one in Vancouver, I think, who 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 $15,000,000 we would find a grafter under our finger.


Thomas Walter Scott: Read further.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will. I must, however, read as I go-read each line at it presents itself :
Now, I would advise my hon. friend from West Elgin to cast his eye down to the seat lust four rows in front of him, to 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, il the seat was filleu by its member, one of these grafters who, by himself and his associates, got away with this sum of 15,000,000 odd dollars.
If the hon. gentleman says that is no charge, then, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say.


Thomas Walter Scott: Would my hon. friend read further? Read my whole statement with respect to that matter.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will, with pleasure. I will read the whole speech if the House will listen. The discussion follows :


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Albert Edward 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, I make haste to withdraw the appellation, and I leave it to my hon. friend to apply the term that he thinks will best suit to any man who, with his associates in the railway business, manages to get away with a matter of $15,000,000.


Mr. 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 from 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 person in this country, got into their pockets, through Conservative railway legislation, a matter of $15,303,891, 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 fori Centre 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.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I need not take up the time of the House reading any more.


Mr. R. F. SUTHERLAND (North Essex).: Mr. Speaker, this discussion lias shown one thing pretty clearly with reference to the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), that is, that if he expects to escape criticism in this House in future, he himself will have to be a little more guarded in the statements he makes. The other evening he made the statement in this House that this government had granted a subsidy to the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway to purchase the support of the Walkerville distillery.


Mr.   HUMP@: I rise to a point of order. I was called to order for referring to a past debate, and the hon. gentleman is as much out of order as I was.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I may say that there is only one subject now before the Chair- the charge made against the hon. member for West Toronto.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Then, I will not refer to a past debate. The hon. member has made the statement that this government purchased the support of the Walkerville distillery by granting a subsidy in aid of the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway. That statement I characterize as utterly without foundation, and asi casting an improper reflection on a most reputable firm in my constituency.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the bon. gentleman should withdraw that statement.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, 1 have listened with a great deal of care and attention to the remarks made by the right hon. leader of the House. I think hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House will give our leaders the credit of never employing language of the kind referred to to-day; and while I partly agreed with the right hon. gentleman's remarks as to the right of the hon. member for West Assiniboia to use any argument or figures he chose, I was sorry that he closed his remarks without disapproving of the word used by that hon. gentleman, namely, that the hon. member for West Toronto was a g(rafter. Had the right hon. gentleman called upon his followers to withdraw the objectionable word probably this debate would have closed. I, therefore, think that the right hon. gentleman in allowing the opportunity to pass for expressing his disapproval of the language used, has not shown to-day that courtesy which usually distinguishes him. As a rule, when any hon. member has anything to say reflecting on the personal character of any other hon. member on either side, he does not take advantage of the latters absence to make a personal charge. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) however chose to take that course, and I would point out to my young friend, who has not been many years in this House, that he will not find tactics of that kind will gain him any advancement in the estimation of hon. members on either side. Such conduct might be left to older members who have some reputation to lose, and who stake that reputation when they adopt such procedure. I have nothing to say against the hon. member for Assiniboia, as regards his ability; but in my judgment it takes a number of years for a man to arrive at that stage when he can afford to take the course which the hon. gentleman has seen fit to follow. No man can afford to use language of the kind the hon. gentleman has indulged in. I might point to one of the best parliamentarians in this House, the hon. member for South Oxford (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright)-whom I consider one of the best parliamentarians in the matter of language-and while I have heard that right hon. gentleman go very far, I never heard him go so far as to use language similar to that in which the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has indulged. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has stated here to-day, on his honour as a gentleman, that he was not one of the promoters, but simply an agent in this matter. Why should he be charged with having made money out of it ? Even if he did make a million dollars or more out of it, is that an argument in connection with the subject before us ? As an agent, he was not a promoter, and should not be charged with having been a promoter. But the hon. gentleman persisted in disputing the statement of the hon. member for West Toronto. 1 have not heard the
hon. member for West Assiniboia withdraw the offensive word ' grafter,' and until he does that he will not have made the amends which this House has a right to exact, if it has any regard for its own dignity.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRTJP (East Hastings).: I had not intended to say anything, but it does seem to me that if the matter should close in the condition in which it is at present, the end will be worse than the beginning. The rules of parliament are the result of years of experience in the motherland crystallized into law and practice. Unless courtesy be maintained in debate, not only will the personal feelings of members, but the public business suffer. I have always understood that the word of a member of parliament, given in the House, must be taken in any matter reflecting upon himself personally. There is no one who will not admit that the charge made against the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) was most offensive and oiie which should not have been made. And when tile lion, member for West Toronto rose in his place and denied the charge, the hon. member for West Assiniboia, who made it, was bound, by all parliamentary usuage and practice, to withdraw it. But instead we find him justifying the language he used and we find other hon. members supporting him. We even find that the right hon. the First Minister-and perhaps it is more noticeable in his case because he is recognized on both sides as the soul of courtesy-we find that even he, although not saying a single word to which anybody could take exception, omitted to touch the very point before the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Quite the reverse. I said that the statement of the hon. member for West Toronto should be accepted without a word, and I say so now.


William Barton Northrup: But the point I make is that the right hon. gentleman failed to advise his follower to withdraw the objectionable expression. If language of this kind is not to be withdrawn, we will be establishing a precedent in debate.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It was withdrawn the other day.


William Barton Northrup: The whole discussion is on that point. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) rightly demands a withdrawal of the term used, and the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) seeks to justify his language. We even find a Minister of the Crown, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland), attempting to excuse it by a reference to statements made on this side against a prominent senator. I have heard that senator's name mentioned at different times in this debate, but I never heard any epithet applied to him at all equivalent to that of ' grafter.' Insinuations were made as to the hopes and aspirations of that gentleman, but no specific

charge. The only time I heard any charge made against him was when the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) addressed the House. But as I am mot at liberty to refer to a previous debate, I cannot repeat what was said. In fact the only specific charges I have heard made in this debate, apart from the present incident, against any member of this House, either from the government or the opposition benches, were the charges hurled again and again at a gentleman who, not long ago, was a colleague of the First Minister. But the charges against that hon. gentleman were not made from this side. I would point out that if this matter is to close at its present stage, if an hon. member can charge another with being a grafter, and not be compelled to withdraw' the objectionable expression, it is hard to say what will be the result during the next few weeks when passions may be excited and hon. gentlemen may be tempted to follow the precedent now laid down.


Mr. W. F. McCREARY (Selkirk).: As the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) I understand, will not have the opportunity of speaking again, I would like to refer to this debate. As I understood the hon. member, he described a certain condition of affairs regarding the Regina and Long Lake Railway.' He pointed out that it had cost $4,000,000, between bonds and land grants, and that $2,500,000 only had gone into the building of the road. The other $1,500,000 had gone into the pockets of somebody.


Mr. CLANCY.: That has been denied.


William Forsythe McCreary: We have then the statement of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier)-a most remarkable statement coming from a gentleman of such high financial standing. He has told us that he paid $1,500,000 to the bondholders, being six years interest in advance on the $2,500,000 which he had borrowed. And in addition he pledged the land grant. That is the most remarkable financial transaction I have ever heard of. What rate per cent that would bring on the amount borrowed, 1 leave to an actuary to calculate. It is equivalent to borrowing $100 and paying $75 as interest in advance, which could not be considered a very profitable financial transaction, yet the hon. gentleman asks us to believe that he paid the $1,500,000 to the bondholders in advance for the interest, on $2,500,000, and not only that but the amount of the land grant, which he sold at $2 per acre, was pledged also, besides the $80,000 per year the company received from the government for carrying the mails.


James Clancy: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for West Toronto has given a most unqualified denial to these statements and the hon. gentleman has to accept them.


William Forsythe McCreary: I am not saying that the hon. gentleman was in it.


William Barton Northrup: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


William Forsythe McCreary: I am in order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 
James Clancy: My point of order is that the hon. member for West Toronto has given a most explicit and definite denial, and his word is now being questioned by the hon. gentleman who has the floor.


William Forsythe McCreary: I am not questioning his word. I am taking his own statement, fie said that the $1,500,000 did not go to anybody's pocket except the pockets of the bondholders, being six years' interest in advance on the $2,500,000. Is that not correct?


Edmund Boyd Osler: No.


William Forsythe McCreary: That is the statement in ' Hansard.'


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not think that, as a rule, I am very dense in these financial explanations. I have already explained several times what the cost of the road was, and 1 have shown that the money, in addition to the cost of the road, was deposited with Morton, Rose & Company in trust to meet the interest on the bonds for six years, while the road was earning nothing. I have not the figures with me, but the cost of the road was about two million and seven or eight hundred thousand dollars. The money that was deposited was the exact amount required to meet the interest on the bonds for that sum for six years. I have not the figures now, but I tell the hon. gentleman that is absolutely the fact, and that the two figures will agree. Every dollar that was raised by the issue of those bonds was put into the road or deposited to make up the amount that with accumulated interest would pay 6 per cent interest on the cost of construction for six years.


William Forsythe McCreary: With the explanations that have been given by my hon. friend it is evident that this was a rather peculiar financial transaction, that the land grant was pledged and also a sum of money was deposited with Morton, Rose & Company to pay interest on these bonds for six years. Let us leave that phase of the question- and I may say that we accept the hon. gentleman's statement that the firm of Osier Hammond & Nanton had nothing to do with it, although we in the west know very well that that firm have been looking after the land grant of that railway for years, they have been looking after the town sites and handling the land grants, and that Mr. Nanton came down here and brought an action against the government in the Exchequer Court to compel them to exchange for that land grant better lands, lands that were cultivable. Yet we accept the hon. gentleman's statement that he had nothing to do with it, although his firm had the

entire management of the Calgary and Edmonton Road. Wliat do we find ? We find a state of affairs that has made the blood boil in the heart of every member from the west, and of every settler in Alberta in years gone by. Hon. gentlemen opposite spent millions of dollars to settle Alberta, and yet, while that expenditure was being made this very road did more than anything else to drive people out of this country. What did they do ? They not only obtained large sums of money for the construction of that road, but when it was completed they never operated the road at all. They never ran a train on it. The Canadian Pacific ran it and have had to run it until this day. They took the money and the land grant and never gave the people any railway accommodation. The Canadian Pacific Railway had to run the road, but not owning the road-bed and the track, they naturally did not run it as well as they should.


Mr. LENNOX.: I submit that this is not relevant to this debate.


William Forsythe McCreary: I am talking directly on the subject of the Calgary and Edmonton Road, which has been the subject of discussion for the last two hours.


William Barton Northrup: It is the hon. junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) that is being discussed.


William Forsythe McCreary: It is the connection of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) with that road.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


William Forsythe McCreary: When the House rose at one o'clock, I was dealing with the alleged connection of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) with the Calgary and Edmonton road. I had dealt partially with his alleged connection with the Regina and Long Lake Road. For the Calgary and Edmonton road, a company was formed, some years ago, to build 105 miles south from Calgary to MacLeod, and 192 miles from Calgary to Edmonton.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker, 1 desire to renew my objection that the remarks of the hon. gentleman are^ not relevant to the question before the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There are two questions raised, first, the connection of the hon. member for West Toronto with the railway, and, secondly, the formation of the company itself. These two questions are the subject of discussion now. I am very sorry that the discussion has taken so wide a range, and I would urge hon. gentlemen to shorten their remarks.


William Forsythe McCreary: I shall not allude to any other road but the two roads I have mentioned. As I say, the Calgary and Edmonton Company was formed, and some millions of dollars were raised over and above the actual cost of construction. Notwithstanding that fact, the road was never operated by the company ;whicli got this land grant and this large subsidy. Not only was it not operated by that company, but it was handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway, who have operated the road for the last two years, but in such a way as to do great injustice to the settlers who went In there, and many people have left that country, to my certain knowledge, because of the insufficient railway service afforded them. Now, in the construction of this road I want to refer to one or two incidents. In the first place, when they ran that road south to Macleod, what did they do ? Instead of going to that town, which had been established some 20 or 25 years before by a number of ranchers and had made considerable progress, men who had built up a number of large business places-instead of going into that town of Macleod, they established the station four miles from that town, cutting it out entirely. The town was almost wiped out of existence until the Crow's Nest road went in a couple of years ago, and gave them some relief. What did they do at the town of Edmonton ?	-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is wandering from the question. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) discussed the financial side of the question.


William Forsythe McCreary: I am going to show exactly the financial aspect now. They came to Edmonton, a town established on the north bank of the Saskatchewan river. Did they go across that town ? No, they built a town, of their own-and I now am coming to the financial aspect of this question. They built a town on the south side of the Saskatchewan, which they called South Edmonton, but it is now called Stratheona. They would not build over to a town already established, with some 2,000 people, built by men who had been there for 25 or 30 years, who had taken their lives in their hands, going across the trails where no other persons had ever settled. No, they would not give these people railway facilities, they built a town of their own south of the river, and they had sufficient influence with the government of the day to take away the Dominion Lands Office from Edmonton and try to bring it over to South Edmonton. They went so far as to have the safe and the books of the Dominion Lands Office loaded on to carts to be hauled down to the river, and the people of Edmonton, who had no confidence that they would get justice from the government, took the law into their own hands. It is just one of these instances that caused the rebellion of 1885, instances

of misgovernment by tbe government then in power. The people said to them, You may think that you are strong enough to move this land office from this town, but we say you are not. And they went anil took the carts, and took off the wheels of the carts, punished the men who were driving the carts, and took the books back to the land office at Edmonton, and the land office is there to-day. That shows, Mr. Speaker, the efforts these gentlemen were making to build up the town of South Edmonton and make a lot of capital out of it. That is one of the grievances under which the people of the North-west have laboured for years.
Now, the hon. gentleman says he bad no connection with this road, in no way was he interested. Well, we know very well that the firm of Osier, Hammond & Nanton, of which the hon. gentleman was senior member, have still control of that land grant and of that road. They make all tbe arrangements with the Canadian Pacific Railway office-I won't say that the hon. gentleman is interested himself, but there is strong confirmative evidence that he must be aware of his firm's connection with the transaction. He also said this morning that he knew nothing about the Regina and Long Lake road, that he was not interested in it. He further stated that two million and a half dollars of bonds had been placed in England, that a million and a half dollars had been placed in the hands of Morton, Rose & Co. to pay six years interest. Now, I have in my hands the ' Hansard ' of 1898, and I find that this subject was discussed at that time in this House. The hon. gentleman complains of my hon. friend from West Assiniboia being privileged by his position of member of parliament to bring such a question before the House. But I find that the hon. member for West Toronto had an opportunity away back in 1898 of taking action at law, if he desired, by reason of statements made by a gentleman who is not now in this House; I refer to Mr. Hugh Sutherland, now executive agent of the Canadian Northern road, at one time a member of this House, a man who is a supporter of the Conservative party, a man who has considerable financial standing and is well acquainted with the financial and railway affairs of the west. I find that some time before 1898, Mr. Sutherland went to England and endeavoured to float certain bonds to build the Winnipeg and Hudson's bay road. The hon. member for West Toronto wrote a letter in the * Globe ' at that time, reflecting upon that work, and saying it should be given no assistance. That letter was replied to by Mr. Sutherland, and with the permission of the House. I will read it, because it deals directly with the point that is the subject of this discussion. He says :
In the first place the company was conceived in deception. It professed to he an independent Mr. McCREARf.	.
company here as in truth it was a mere Canadian Pacific snare to catch the guileless investor. Look at the names of the directors :- H. C. Hammond, partner of Mr. Osier, president ; E. B. Osier, director of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; Senator Mclnnis, director of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; R. B. Angus, director of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; J. G. Ogden, comptroller of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; W. Sutherland Taylor, treasurer of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; and Charles Drinkwater, secretary of the Canadian Pacific Railway This company issued a prospectus through Morton, Rose & Co., of London, on July 18, 1889, asking the public to subscribe for $3,809,140 of its bonds at fi per cent. The following misleading paragraph appears in the prospectus :-
On February 1, 1896, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will, on giving six months notice, have the power of calling in and paying off the above bonds at 110.
The ' Canada Gazette ' edited by Mr. Thomas Skinner, a London director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, a supposed authority on Canadian investments, published the prospectus, with tbe following editorial note (see page 376): 'It is taken for granted that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will, at the end of six years, exercise its power to absorb the road, and in that case the payment of the bonds at 110 would, as a matter of course, follow.'
Mark you, 6 per cent at par, redeemable .by the Canadian Pacific Railway in six years at 110, took the investing public by storm. The bonds were readily sold, and were soon quoted on the London market at an advanced price. The prospectus also stated that the company had obtained from the government a cash subsidy of $80,000 a year for twenty years, and a land grant of 14,000,000 acres, to show that, independent of the railway, the company possessed large substantial assets.
It leaked .out some time afterwards that the Canadian Pacific Railway did not intend to redeem the bonds at 110, and therefore ' would not exercise its power to absorb the road'; that the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Company had disposed of its land grant to another company, represented by Mr. Osier, under another corporate name ; that, in fact, the bondholders had nothing to fall back upon for their investment of $15,000 a mile but the road itself, without rolling stock or terminals: that the actual cost of constructing the road was about $1,500,000 less than the bondholders had advanced upon it, and down went the bonds on the London market from 110 to 30.
What about the poor widows and orphans who had purchased these bonds over in London? What about the financial standing of the hon. member for West Toronto, who now tells us -that subsidies to railways are a fruitful source of political corruption, and that no subsidies should Be given to any other road? A man who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.
Does the Canadian Pacific Railway now intend, or did it ever intend, ' to exercise its power to absorb the bonds at 110 ' ? It has a lease of the road from this generous Qu'Appelle Railway Company for six years without rental. If it never intended to redeem at 110, it could afford to run the road in such a manner for that period that net earnings would be nil. As a matter of fact, the service was so bad and rates so high that in some cases the people of Prince Albert have had to re-

sort to the old time ' ox-cart ' method of transportation. The settlement of the Prince Albert district has been seriously retarded in consequence, and the present settlers disheartened. The fact is, this roundabout road should never have been built, but instead thereof sufficient aid should have been given the Manitoba and North-western Railway to extend its line to Prince Albert. This, however, would not have suited the ' stock-jobbing ' propensities of Mr. Osier and his associates. No, the idea appears to be to wreck the Qu'Appelle Railway at the end of the six years' lease by ceasing operation, followed, in all probability, by default in payment of interest on the bonds, and the difference between ' exercising its power to absorb the road at 110 ' and what the road might bring under the hammer, which would probably be 10 minus the 100.
For fear it may be said that there is no authority for the assumption that it is proposed to cease operation of the road next year, I may say that I am credibly informed that the government has already received such an intimation, and I believe it is the first case of the kind on record in Canada. In view of the foregoing it is not refreshing to listen to the virtuous indignation of Mr. Osier, when he says :-
' I say without any hesitation that I consider tho result of the operation of this road for the last five or six years should of itself be a sufficient reason why the government should make no such grant to the Hudson's Bay Railway Company.
Is it not refreshing now for this lion, gentleman to get up and say no grant should be made to any future railway ? If this is not a stock-jobbing scheme let the kon. gentleman bring suit against Mr. Sutherland in the courts, as Mr. Sutherland is a responsible individual.


James Clancy: May I ask the kon. gentleman what he is reading from ?


William Forsythe McCreary: I am reading from 'Hansard' a letter written by Mr. Hugh Sutherland.
Mi'. CLANCY. In a speech made by "whom ?


William Forsythe McCreary: In a speech made by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis).


James Clancy: Quite so.


William Forsythe McCreary: I am reading the letter not the speech. Does the hon. gentleman doubt the authenticity of the letter ? Mr. Sutherland holds a responsible position with the Canadian Northern Railway Company in the city of Winnipeg, he can be brought to Ottawa if a telegram is sent to him, and he can substantiate what he has said in this letter, or he can be brought before the court. Mr. Sutherland continues :
I have said that the company was conceived in deception. I say further, that it was born in sin, and has successfully carried on the object of its being. I ask any business man to read from the company's prospectus the clause I have quoted, accompanied by the editorial note
of Mr. Skinner, the financial director of the Canadian Pacific Railway in London, and say if it is not a deception and a snare-


James Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has told us


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh.


James Clancy: I think I heard an echo from a quarter that I always recognize upon that side of the House. I shall not name the hon. gentleman, but if I did it would not be to his credit.


Thomas Walter Scott: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) refer to me ?


James Clancy: Not at all. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) is reading now from a letter alleged to have been written by Mr. Hugh Sutherland in denial of what an hon. gentleman has said in this House. He has no right to read any letter emanating from any person outside of this House by way of denial of any statement that is made.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The rule is that if an hou. member has stated something that is personal to him his statement has to be accepted and no statement made by an outside person can lje read to contradict the personal statement "made by an hon. member of this House.


William Forsythe McCreary: I know the rule, Mr. Speaker, but It is in order to give the hon. member for West Toronto another opportunity of explaining this peculiar transaction that I was reading this letter. We, of course, have to take his word but at the same time the people of the west will have doubts in their minds as long as these facts are unexplained. I was simply desiring to give the hon. member for West Toronto another opportunity' of vindicating his reputation. If this letter is not true the hon. gentleman ought to take action against Mr. Sutherland, the writer of this letter. I think I have read sufficient of it to show that Mr. Sutherland has made some peculiar statements, and if I were to go on and read the whole letter through as I might do, I would find that even stronger statements had been made. I do not know whether the term ' grafter ' should have been used or not, but it has been proven that there was a graft by somebody or that an enormous sum of money was made illegitimately out of this transaction. What could you call a man who participated in a transaction like that ? I have seen it stated in the press that if a poor devil steals a coat to keep himself warm he is called a thief, but if he steals $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 he is called a Napoleon of finance. Probably the word ' grafter ' is supposed to come in there. However, there is no doubt about it that there was a large amount of money received from the people for a consideration that never was given, for a railway that



never turned a wheel, for a streak of rust across the prairie, one line to Prince Albert and another to Edmonton. If the hon. gentleman, did not get that money let him explain if he acted as financier or broker for some other people, where it has gone, and, if necessary, to show where it has gone, let him ask for a royal commission to investigate this whole transaction.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this discussion has taken a very considerable range and that it might have been a great deal shorter. What strikes me particularly is the extreme indulgence of the right lion, leader of the government (Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). He is the most indulgent man I ever saw in connection with the rules of debate in this House, and all I can say is that if he were a father confessor he would enjoy in our church a very great reputation. As a matter of fact it narrows itself down to this : What were the words used by my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) and why is it that these words have not been withdrawn, or why is it that it was not suggested by the right hon. leader of the House that the hon. gentleman should purely and simply withdraw them ? It is quite easy to understand that in the heat of debate when advancing an argument such as my hon. friend was advancing he should go a little beyond the bounds. That is natural but what seems a little strange is that after the statements, most unwarrantable and I should say insulting, made by the hon. gentleman have been denied and which he made in the absence of my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) he should not simply have withdrawn the improper expressions used. I ha.ve no doubt that if your honour at the present moment suggests to my hon. friend the propriety of withdrawing these expressions he would willingly do so. What was it that my hon.| friend said ?
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 $15,303,891. My hon. friend from West Elgin will remember that one evening here he read a letter from1 some one in Vancouver, I think, who 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 $15,000,000 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, to 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 Ihese grafters who, by himself and his associates, got away with this sum of 15,000,000 odd dollars.
Mr. McCreary.
After tlie attention of my hon. friend had been called by some bon. members of this House to the gravity of these charges, be went on as follows :
I will make a further statement, and make it upon my responsibility, that the hon. member for Centre 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. The individuals in this company 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 of legislation which enabled their friends to get away with an amount of money like this.
As I understand getting away with and improperly taking away money are expressions which cast very severe aspersions and when added to that is the term 'grafter,' as far as I understand that term, the aspersions become an absolute insult. My bon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) contradicted that statement this morning. He gave an explanation as to what part he took in carrying out this transaction, and he denied absolutely that he was one of the promoters of this company. Then my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), whose interference in the debate is the cause of its prolongation ; he called attention to the land deals, and we found that my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) had merely acted as trustee for the sale of that land, and that he was associated in that trust with Lord Strathcona, a man whose reputation is world-wide, and with Mr. Richard B. Angus, one of the most honourable public men and honest citizens of Montreal. Any aspersion cast upon my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) falls equally upon those who acted as co-trustees with him in the transaction, which is here denounced as a piece of scoundrelism by the hon. gentleman from Saskatchewan. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that the summing up of the right hon. Prime Minister was scarcely calculated to give that high tone to the debate, which according to the statement of the Minister of Public Works, has been abandoned in this House for some time. The right hon. gentleman, after having admitted that the member for West Toronto was an honourable man, stated that nothing that had been said by the member for West Assiniboia weakened his argument. That was not the question which bad been raised. The question which had been raised called for an immediate retraction from the hon. member (Mr. Scott), and if we are allowed in this House to speak about colleagues as men who carry away swag, as men who are grafters, as men who take away improperly $15,000,000

of the people's money ; if we are allowed to apply these expressions to men occupying the position of the hon. gentleman from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) and to such men as Lord Strathcona, who at present occupies a high position in official life under this government, and to men of the high standing of Mr. R. B. Angus ; if we are allowed to do that without any check from those in authority, then what is to be the limit of decent discussion here ? The Minister of Public Works stated that the well-known rules of debate have been departed from, and he instanced the case of Senator Cox. I have heard no man in this House on either side, make any such charge against Senator Cox, as was made by the member for Assiniboia against my hon. friend (Mr. Osier). It is true that the saying has been invented and has become popularized that ' Cox can't wait,' but I submit there is nothing in that expression as it has been used-and I do not know it has been used by any member of this House-which conveys anything like the aspersion that was contained in the words of the hon. member (Mr. Scott). If these expressions of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) were used in the heat of debate,, that might be pardonable, and it will be sufficient for you, Mr. Speaker, to insist on the hon. gentleman withdrawing them in order that an end may be put to this discussion.


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend who has just taken his seat has made a very direct appeal to me. I have been appealed to also by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Nortlirup) and others, to make a further statement respecting this matter and to withdraw a certain statement I made the other evening. I have exhausted my right to speak, but possibly the House will allow me the privilege of making a further statement. As most of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side are very much older parliamentarians than 1 am, I think that possibly you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that in certain respects they have not been quite fair in their comment respecting this matter. I would point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) that after using the word * grafter,' and when the term was called in question, I did not wait a moment before withdrawing it. When an hon. gentleman from Toronto raised the point, I immediately said :
Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, before you give your ruling, I will make haste to withdraw that appellation.-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read on.


Thomas Walter Scott: If the House will permit me, I will continue to read the paragraph in a moment. Respecting the appeal that was made to me by the hon. gentleman from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) and the lecture which he directed to me, and to the House, on the amenities of politics, I may say that this lecture did not appeal to me 330J
very strongly, because of the fact that I recollect that on the public platform in Regina within the past six months, that hon. gentleman endeavoured to leave the impression on the people that one of the Prime Minister's colleagues was a public thief. I ask you, Mr. Speaker


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) was going to make a personal explanation. He is now continuing the discussion, and he has exhausted his right to speak.


Thomas Walter Scott: Only with the indulgence of the House. I ask you if that conduct was more manly than my course of saying all I had to say concerning'an hon. member right here where he has opportunity to explain. But the appeal of my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Ingram) does have weight with me. There is no member of this House less desirous of taking an offensive position, or of stating anything which may be offensive to any other hon. gentleman, than I am. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) was fair enough to read the part of my speech in which I took care to state that I did not wish to cast any personal reflection upon the hon. gentleman from West Toronto. But, Sir, I think that the House will agree with me, that upon the facts and figures which I have taken from the public records


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr. SCOTT-I was justified in drawing the conclusion which I drew at that itme.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is only bolstering up his statement now.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. gentleman for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has specifically denied that he was a promoter in this railway scheme. He has specifically denied that he profited to the extent of a cent from this railway scheme, and for my part, Mr. Speaker, I wish to accept his denial. I thought that I had done so this morning, but apparently I did not make myself clear enough. I wish to withdraw the words I made use of, so far as they may apply to him-these words are in addition to the portion I have already read :
-and I leave it to my hon. friend to apply the term that he thinks will best suit to any man who, with his associates in the railway business, manages to get away with a matter of $15,000,000.
So far as my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) is concerned, I wish to withdraw these words to the extent that they may apply to him. This does not affect my main point regarding the legislation that has been put through this House under the late government. The money must have reached some quarter which has not yet been explained to the House.


William Barton Northrup: May I be pardoned for one moment, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. COMMONS
Scott) has referred to me. If he has in his mind the idea that at a public meeting at Regina or anywhere else, I publicly accused any member of the government of being a public thief, he entirely misapprehended what I said. Apart altogether from the improbability of my using language of that kind, I hope, Sir, I have sense enough not to make myself liable to an action, even if it were true, by making such a statement in public, I can assure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) that he has misunderstood me on that matter.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, may I have your permission to answer the hon. gentleman ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman has already spoken twice, and has exhausted his right to speak.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I have been accused, and I desire to make an explanation in connection with the letter that has been read.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have declared the hon. gentleman out of order. This discussion must come to an end.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Surely I can reply to it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I declare the motion lost.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman rose to speak.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I rose, and I did not hesitate a moment.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman has already exhausted his right to speak.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. gentleman who read the letter has spoken twice also.


James Clancy: The hon. member for West Toronto had a right to speak-


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order, order.


James Clancy: I have some rights in this House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order, there is absolutely nothing now before the Chair.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn, and that is always in order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I must inform the hon. gentleman that when a motion to adjourn has been made once it cannot be renewed.



ORDERS OP THE DAY.

James Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question. I do not wish to trespass on any of the rights of this House by attempting to speak when I have no right to do so. I was ready to rise when the hon. member for West Toronto rose in his place. I quite understand that you did not see me; but he rose, and that prevented me from rising. Having now heard the circumstances. I do not think you will insist that I have not the right to speak.


William Barton Northrup: 


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am sorry to say that I have already decided that the motion is disposed of. I suppose we have had the discussion long enough, and it would be useless to continue it further.


James Clancy: I do not think the hon. gentleman is a judge of when these questions have been discussed long enough.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Orders of the Day.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) has the floor.



SCOTTISH DEMONSTRATION IN GLENGARRY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ,T. T. SCHELL (Glengarry). Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring before the House and the government a matter which happened yesterday. The Scottish people of the county of Glengarry had arranged for a demonstration in Alexandria, to take place yesterday. The right hon. the Earl of Dun-donald had signified his intention of being present at that gathering, and the Highland people of the county of Glengarry had gathered in large numbers to do him honour. At the time of the departure of the train from Alexandria
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I suppose the hon. gentleman simply wants to ask a question of the government ?


Mr. SCHELL.: I just wish to bring this matter before the House, and to explain the circumstances.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman cannot do it now. In order to bring such a matter before the House, a motion to adjourn would have to be made, and we have already decided on the question to adjourn.



THE ALASKAN BOUNDARY CASE.

Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the government if he can give me any information with respect to a matter to which my attention has been called. A despatch from Toronto advises me :
The associated press releases an abstract of the case of the United States before the Alaskan boundary tribunal, covering two columns. Perhaps the Canadian government will also make public its case to-day. If so, please let me know.
Might I ask the right hon. gentleman if it is the intention of this government to adopt a similar course to that which has been adopted by the United States government, and to send a summary of the Canadian case to the Associated Press for distribution among the newspapers of this country ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Our case has been before the public for four or five weeks

already. I have myself seen, and my hon. friend cannot have failed also to have seen, several articles on the Canadian case as presented to the commissioners. 1 am not aware that anybody has taken the trouble up to this time of having a summary of it made. That is a matter that has not been referred to ns. It has been left to the enterprise of the Canadian newspapers.



QUESTION OF ORDER.

Andrew B. Ingram: Before the Orders of the Day are called, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you if it is in accordance with the rules of this House to declare a motion carried when an hon. gentleman is on his feet to address the House ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I suppose I am not obliged to give an answer to a categorical question like that.	_


Andrew B. Ingram: It is a small piece of business.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I suppose the hon. gentleman will withdraw that expression. He said it was a small thing for the Speaker to say what I have said.


Andrew B. Ingram: I said it was rather small for a Speaker. If the hon. gentleman applies this to himself I shall be very glad to withdraw the expression.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask my right hon. friend for information on a matter of some importance. It has been stated throughout the country, and mentioned with some show of authority in newspapers which at first approved of the government's transcontinental railway scheme, that a modification had taken place in the views of the government, and that a portion of that scheme would be withdrawn. Some said that the eastern section would be withdrawn, and others that other portions would be withdrawn, at any rate for the present. In view of these statements, and in view of the fact that we are at present occupied with the study of that important measure, I think it is proper to ask if the government intend to abandon or divert any part of the scheme, or in any way to modify the measure which is now under our consideration. Some parties have stated that the Quebec-Moncton section would be abandoned. My right hon. friend will also have noticed that elsewhere it has been stated that the Quebec-Winnipeg section would be abandoned. It is proper under these circumstances that we should seek information from the government on these important matters.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion before to remark to my
hon. friend that he is altogether too credulous of newspaper reports. I am sure it does not require from me any derogation of such rumours; but since the hon. gentleman has put the question, I have only to tell him now that the ' government understand their duty better than to abandon any part of their scheme. They would be recreant to their duty if they did so, and the whole scheme will have to be dealt with as it has been put before the House.


Mr. CARGILL.: Mr. Speaker, I am recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday as having voted for and against the amendment of Mr. Puttee. I would like that to be corrected. I voted for the amendment, but not against it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: My attention was called to that mistake yesterday. If the hon. gentleman will look at the Votes and Proceedings of this day, he will see that it has been corrected in an erratum. The hon. gentleman is mentioned as having voted for the amendment.
House in Committee on Bill (No. 235) to provide for the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.
On section 2,


Albert Edward Kemp: When the House rose yesterday, we were discussing the question of the cost of carrying the produce of the North-west to the sea-board. The speech of the First Minister has been printed and I understand it is ready for circulation. In that speech I notice this reference to the cost of transportation :
'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.
And then come these words which are capitalized :
At the least possible cost.
He said in another place :
For one or two or three generations at least, perhaps more, these new settlers will grow cereals probably and nothing else.
Evidently the Prime Minister was of the opinion that the chief freight which would go to the sea-board over this route would be cereals, the wheat of the North-west. We have had some discussion regarding the cost of carrying wheat. I have taken the stand that wheat cannot be carried over that long rail route to compete with the roads now in existence, and I take it for granted that had the government been convinced of that fact, it would not have gone into the eastern part of this scheme. There is no evidence to show that grain can be carried over this proposed road-which practically parallels the water route for a considerable distance, although many miles away-in competition with the water route,

and the combined rail and water route. The general opinion of shippers in this country and in the United States is that our great St. Lawrence system, beginning at the Straits of Belle Isle and ending at the head of the great lakes, is a wonderful one. Grain can be carried from the head of the lakes to Buffalo at one cent a bushel. It can be carried in vessels capable of holding 250,000 bushels ; and there are at Buffalo excellent means of loading and unloading. It can then be carried through the canals, now that they are fourteen feet deep for two cents per bushel. I believe that it can be carried to Quebec at from 3 to 31 cents per bushel profitably. Something was said by the hoD. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Meigs) about the canals being out of date. Well, there are canals and canals. There are canals which are not in operation, and there is a vast difference between canals connecting two great bodies of water like the two canals at Sault Ste. Marie, or the Welland, or the St. Lawrence canals, connecting these great stretches of inland water, and a shallow canal through a country in which there are no such natural water-ways as our great lakes, so that we must consider the existing conditions ; we must not lose sight of the great lakes, in discussing this question. I would like to impress upon the First Minister that one of the most important questions in connection with this projected road is the question of carrying the products of the North-west at a cheap rate. If this new road will carry grain and pay 3 per cent, it is going to do something that is entirely contradicted by present statistics, and we ought to have some information to show how it is going to do it. Reference has been made to a statement of Sir William Van Horne, and a certain amount of prejudice is attached to what he says, because he is the head of the Canadian Pacific Railway. At the same time we must admit that he made a straight statement ; and I believe it to be true. At any rate the government thought highly enough of his opinion to try and secure his services as chairman of the transportation commission. What Sir Wiliam Van Horne said is this :
Sir William Van Horne, in an interview today regarding the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, said that in his opinion the solution of the transportation problem, as affecting the chief products of the North-west to the sea-board was the betterment.and cheapening of the cheapest route, the lake and rail-route, with which no railway, neither the Canadian Pacific nor any railway north of the great lakes could hop? to compete in cost, for rail lines could only compete with water lines where they have the advantage in distance and where working conditions are most favourable.
He made another statement very similar.
It is not my intention to offer any obstruction to this Bill, but yesterday we spent the whole day without profit because there Mr. KEMP.
were questions asked of the government, and somehow or other the discussion ran wild and before the questions were answered hon. gentlemen on both sides brought up other issues, and the point on which information was demanded was lost sight of. The question I desire to put has regard to the cost of carrying grain. The Order in Council of the 27th of May clearly makes this point:
The conditions with regard to the navigation of the St. Lawrence route, and, generally, any Improvements, 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 net he 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 be opened up.
Then the Order in Council points out that among the forces operating against the attainment of all-Canadian transportation are :
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 he investigated, and the best and most economical methods used by our competitors should he carefully studied and reported upon.
I take it- that by this Minute it was intended to determine what is the most economical means of transporting the products of the west to the sea-board, and what I ask is what information the government have on this point. There are mountains of information, we are told, but this is the essential point. Will the hon. minister say that this road will be able to earn 3 per cent on the investment and carry grain in competition with existing railways.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have been debating this measure for three weeks. The point brought up by the hon. gentleman has been brought up and discussed time and again.


Mr. HEYD.: Fifty times.


The PRIME MINISTER.: At least, and we have not been able to convince my hon. friend, and I am afraid that anything I can say will not convince him.
Mr.. KEMP. Oh, yes.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am afraid he is past conviction. This is one of the questions on which we cannot agree, and the only way of solving it is a vote. Perhaps we are in the wrong, but I believe that we are in the right. Let me tell my hon. friend something which, I think, will convince him that he is in the wrong, and it is this. Comparing always water transportation with railway transportation and suggesting that

railway transportation is an alternative to water transportation. It is nothing of the kind. Because we propose this measure, because we intend to implement it and to put it into operation, we do not do so with a view to doing away with the system of water transportation. Water transportation will have to go on in the future, happily for the country, as it has in the past. The thing which we wish to impress on the country is this-and I would like also to impress this on my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) who has just spoken and on all those who think with him on that subject-that water transportation as it exists to-day is not sufficient for the needs of the country and that it must be supplemented by other transportation, by railway transportation. What have we to-day under the existing system ? As soon as the crop is harvested, from this month, September, until the crop is harvested and threshed, until the close of navigation there will be a rush to take the wheat from the wheat fields to the head of Lake Superior in order to store it there to ship it as soon as possible to the sea-board. This rush will last for one, two or three months, September, October and November ; then the farmers will have to wait from December. when navigation is closed, until next spring, before they can again resume their shipments. That is an abnormal position for the people of the west, it is an abnormal position for the people of the east. It is abnormal for the people of the west in this, that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway, which has just come into operation, are not able to secure enough rolling stock to accommodate the shipments of wheat. It is obnoxious to the people of the east because for these three months they are starved of rolling stock and are told by the railway companies :	We
have transferred all our rolling stock to the west in order to transfer the crop to the head of Lake Superior. Therefore we have a condition which is abnormal and which is not satisfactory to the country, and we want, as far as we can, to relieve that condition of things and to make possible the transportation of wheat not only in the summer, but in winter as well. My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who I claim is an expert in these matters-
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes. My hon. friend is an expert and I do not know a greater authority either in this House or outside of it. If there is one man in this House who can speak with authority on this question of transportation, it is my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and I make no exception.


James Clancy: Would my right lion, friend permit me


The PRIME MINISTER.: If we want to make any progress we must adhere to the
rules of debate. I have been told to-day that I have been too lax as leader of the government to enforce the rules of debate ;
I have profited by the lesson and therefore I will apply them to my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy).
My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) told us yesterday that we have not seen the last of the development of railway transportation. My hon. friend has told us that perhaps at no distant date it will be possible for railway transportation not only to compete with water transportation but to overcome and overtake it. This to me, whatever it may be to gentlemen on the other side of the House, is not an improbable contingency. When we look upon the record of railway development during the last twenty years, and especially during the last ten years we must come to the conclusion that the statement made yesterday by my hon. friend from North Norfolk is not at all over-sanguine. It is not impossible to hope and suppose that at no distant date railways will be able to compete with water-ways in the transportation of products. At the present time in the transportation of wheat water-ways have an advantage. Why ? On account of the facilities for elevating the wheat from the railways to the barges and from the barges to the railways again. But so far, for instance, as packing freight is concerned I believe that there is reason to state that at this moment the railways can compete successfully with water routes and this will not be denied. Twenty years ago this would not have been possible, but, it is true at this moment on account of the great improvements that have been made in railway operation. My hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) claims that with the improvement of grades, with the improvement of rails, with the improvement of engines, the time will come when railway transportation will overtake and overcome water transportation. We look forward to this time ; I cannot say we are certain of it, but we hope and believe it will come. We cannot be content to allow the present condition of things to continue. I have described the position as it is to-day. The wheat grower of the west who has not disposed of his crop before the 1st of December, before the 15th of December at the latest, will have to wait until next spring before lie can take advantage of the market.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend could not do otherwise. He could ship a part of his crop to Lake Superior but he could not get it further. Railway transportation will come to his rescue. Even today it is possible for the Canadian Pacific Railway, not to a large extent, but to some extent, to carry wheat around Lake Superior. I would ask hon. gentlemen on the other side how long is it since the Canadian

Pacific Railway lias been able to carry wlieat from Winnipeg around the north shore of Lake Superior ? It is less than five years, if I am correctly informed and I think I am, since they commenced to carry wheat from the wheat fields all-rail to St. John. They are doing that now to some extent although not to as great an extent as they would like, because the condition of their line is such that they cannot do it to advantage. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) some days ago advanced a scheme to buy the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Fort William in order to make it a common highway for transportation. He did not propose to use it as it is, but to improve it and to make it possible to use it as a highway to carry grain from the head of Lake Superior to the maritime provinces. That is the plan of the hon. leader of the opposition, a plan approved of as I understand by my hon. friend from Toronto to buy the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Fort William and even to improve this line, to blast the rocks along the rocky shore of Lake Superior and to improve the road-bed of the Canadian Pacific Railway line, to overcome the gradients, to straighten the curves and thus to make it a grain road.
So far so good. But then I have an answer to my hon. friend from Toronto. If it was a good plan of the leader of the opposition to (suggest the propriety of buying the Canadian Pacific Railway's line from North Bay to Fort William and then to improve it, it is a better plan, I think, by far to build a line over a better section of country to do the very same thing and to make it a grain route. My boil, friend (Mr. Kemp) wants to know if we are able to fix the rate which will be charged on the new line to-day. I am sorry to say we cannot fix the rate to-day, that is too much to expect from us, and I do not think his question is serious. The fixing of the rates will depend largely on the economy of construction, the gradients and curves we will be able to obtain and the character of the road that will lie built.
ill1. BROCK. Why commit yourself until you do know ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Speaker, because we know of the character to come to a conclusion. My hon. friend is not open to conviction upon that. I told my hon. friend the other day that there were mountains of information on this subject. I do not think I do him an injury-and if I do I will be willing to apologize-by saying that I do not think he has approached any of these mountains to obtain information. I do not think he wants to be informed and he believes that the character of this country is such as not to afford us a good route. But we have information which will suffice to enable us to publish in Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
a few days a pamphlet based upon official reports and upon nothing else in which it will be shown that for two-thirds or three-fourths of the distance between Quebec and the west the country is a plateau as level as the valley of the St. Lawrence from Quebec to Montreal. So, I say, we have there the character of road that we desire to have. When we have done that we will have relieved the farmers of the North-west to a large extent. It is not only wheat that will be carried over this road. I will tell my hon. friend one thing as a manufacturer-and I hope that we shall carry a good deal of his own goods over that railway-I believe that we shall be able to do a great deal for the manufacturers of Canada by the construction of that road. My hon. friend represents the class of manufacturers, a very worthy class, and I believe that if there is one class who ought to be in favour of this railway it is the manufacturers, because it will afford them a competing line with an existing road to take their goods to the west. The west will be in need of all their goods, and as return freight it will be possible for that railway to take wheat from the North-west to the harbour of St. John. This is the information which I have to give to my hon. friend, and I think it will commend itself to the judgment and the sound sense of every member of this House.


Albert Edward Kemp: Mr. Chairman


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would like to hear from my hon. friend from Toronto Centre (Mr. Brock).


Mr. BROCK.: I will be glad to let the Premier hear from me. We have had, what is for him, a long speech on this question, every word of which condemns his own scheme. If he has information-and I have no doubt he would not say so if he had not-if he has information upon which contractors and engineers can build a road from Moncton to Winnipeg, with the grades insisted upon by the gentleman who he says is the greatest transportation authority in this country, if he has information that a road with those grades can be built, then I think lie condemns himself and his whole scheme, because one of the great features of his scheme is that it cannot wait, it cannot wait even for information. With the information which he says he has now, he feels that he is justified in forcing this road upon the country and in forcing this contract upon the company. If he has the information which he says he has, he should have gone back to that Minute in Council, and should have been willing to submit this question to those commissioners whom he has appointed for this very purpose. Blit before he commits this country to an immense expenditure of money, particularly under the circumstances that he has stated just now, if he has information that that

plateau at tlie north side of the height of land is of such a level nature and of such a character that he can huild a road such as has been described as absolutely necessary by that gentleman whom he quotes as the greatest authority in this country-if he has got that information, I say that he can afford to wait, X say that this country will be willing to wait. What I would urge upon the government at the present time is that they should wait ; and that they should submit this contract to the tribunal which they have appointed for the very purpose of forming a judgment upon the information that the Premier says he has got. Now I would be diffident to set up my opinion against that of the distinguished gentleman whom he relies upon. I have made a statement in this House, and I am prepared to stand by it, that I have Information regarding the building of a road north of the old line from Toronto to James bay, to the effect that that country over the height of land where their road is going to run is of such a nature that there is no intention at the present time of building that road, either by the city of Toronto, or by any company, or by anybody else. They are anxious of course to meet the Canadian Pacific Railway road, they are anxious to build to that point.
But where is the company going to get its business from, where is it going to get any local business, that is the life-blood of 'any road either in Canada or in the United States ? Does my hon. friend mean to say that any prudent railway men expect to make money and to pay dividends without doing any local business at all ? Why are they so anxious to fill up the intervening country with population ? It is because it will furnish local business out of which the railroad company may make their dividends. It may be said that in this case, there is probably no thought of dividends. I think the company may abandon all thought of dividends and the government may abandon all thought of interest out of this road, because if I understand this matter aright this road has been forced upon the Grand Trunk Pacific people. It was not contemplated by them in the first place. The best judgment of the managers of that company was to build the road from North Bay through to the Pacific ocean. That was their intention, that was their first thought, and we often find in many other matters besides railroading that first thoughts are the best. But these things that came afterwards forced the new scheme upon them. B,ut I do not believe the Grand Trunk Pacific are going to lose anything by agreeing to do what they have agreed to do. I have this much faith in the intelligence of the directors of that company, that they would rather throw this road up and throw it upon the government, than have to work it when the government insist upon their 3 per cent interest being
paid-I am speaking of that portion of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton. Now let me tell the Premier wtyat 1 think would be a business-like thing to do at the present time. I know it means the pocketing of a good deal of pride, I know it will mean taking a certain amount of back water, but I contend that if we should be actuated by patriotic motives, and I contend that our hon. Premier is actuated by what he thinks to be the best interests of the country, although he is too liable sometimes to lean upon dangerous reeds. He refers to a state-men made yesterday by an hon. gentleman that wheat could be drawn by that road in competition with water or any other means. But that gentleman has made a variety of statements on this subject, and we do not know to which one he wishes to adhere. But judging from that hon. gentleman's reed'd for the last eight or ten years, if I was going to build a railroad or anything else that was going to cost millions of dollars and was going to take several years to build, I would hesitate very much before relying upon that hon. gentleman's opinion given at any particular time, because he would change his mind at least once or more during the period. I think the Premier, instead of taking the advice of so great an authority as the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), would do better to take the great railroad men into his confidence. I would prefer, speaking for myself, to leave the decision of this question in the hands of the Railway Commission that the Premier has nominated, I would turn the matter over to them even now, even though some of them may be committed to the present scheme. Because I believe in the honesty of these gentlemen, and when they have the evidence before them that the Premier speaks of, and the other evidence that they will collect, if they should recommend this road, the Premier will find just as strong supporters of that scheme on this side of the House as there is on the other side. But I think, the Premier is wrong. He must not venture to think for a moment that all the patriotism is on the other side of the House. That has not been the opinion of the people of this country, who entrusted the Conservative party with the duty of building the Canadian Pacific Railway, and they did build it. Fault may be found, fault has been found, and will continue to be found with the Canadian Pacific Railway. But will the road that the right hon. gentleman is shoving through this House with railroad speed, escape fault being found with it after it is built ? That road has got to be run after it is built. What about the snowfall, wbat about filling up the puttings in that part of the road hundreds of miles away from civilization ? It will not be in the same position as the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, in the midst of a large population. That road

has got to be run many hundreds of miles through a country without a vestige of habitation. This is a very serious matter. Then you may have accidents on that road, and a number of passengers may be killed or injured. Look at the position you will be in. Where are you going to have your central stations ? Look at the expense of maintaining stations in that country. Why, Sir, it will cost double to run and maintain that road through that country after It is built, than it will to build it.
Your chance of getting 3 per cent has vanished into thin air. I contend that the road is absolutely discredited in the minds of people who are best able to judge. If this is going to be forced through at the present time, if you are going to force it just as you are going to force the grain afterwards up hill, you will have as much difficulty in one case as you will in the other. I want to allude to my bon. friend on my left (Mr. Meigs), who made a most businesslike and straightforward appeal. I saw that it took with the right hon. gentleman, and it was to him very convincing. My hon. friend had run a canal boat somewhere on Lake Champlain thirty years ago, and the moment a railway was built through the country that gentleman sold out, or may be he gave his boat away. I would suppose that he would give it away for nothing if it was of so very little value. However, whether he gave it away or whether he sold it, he got out of the business land ran away. I was brought up on the banks of a river which had a navigation system -the Grand river. There was the Grand river navigation system, which my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) will know about. The railway was built and the company went out of business, and why ? Because the people interested in it did as a lot of men do, instead of, in a manly way, standing up and trying to compete with the railway by improving their canals and works, they closed up the business and ran. Is that an example for this' great Dominion ? Is that something that this country should do ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: What would you have done if you had been losing money ?


William Rees Brock: I would have made a great deal better attempt than they made to meet the opposition.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: You would have sold out like any one else.


William Rees Brock: This country has invested in a great many enterprises. This is not the only one. We have several enterprises on our hands at the present time and the *government are paying $500,000 a year over and above working expenses to carry on one of these enterprises. The Pacific cable. I suppose, was a patriotic institution-


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order, order.


William Rees Brock: Mr. BROCK-which was forced upon this country. The right hon. gentleman, I see, does not like to hear about it. Ways'and means have to be found to build this railway that we are talking about. We have to get the money. I do not think we can get it in this country. We will have to go to England or some other country for it. We will have to raise an enormous amount of money in the next few years, necessary to replace the money that we have already borrowed at very high rate and the money that we require to build this railway. We are going to the money market very much discredited, after having gone with this scheme which falls short of paying its operating expenses by $500,000 a year, a scheme which was forced upon this country with so much enthusiasm, and we are now showing our patriotism by sending a message a day over the cable. Let us be careful that this present scheme is not going to get a black eye as that has done. We are not a wealthy people. We are a poor struggling people, making our way by economy and care, making our way because we meet business requirements as they occur. lret, here is an attempt being made to force a scheme upon the country that cannot pretend to give the relief that hon. gentlemen opposite claim it will give for at least six or seven years. Hon. gentlemen opposite are in a great hurry to have the scheme forced upon the country and to get a snap verdict, largely upon the great and deserved popularity of the right hon. Prime Minister. But from popularity we have to come down to business, because this money has to be raised in the old country. I do not think of going to the old country, or of writing letters in the ' North American Review,' or of doing anything of that kind to injure this country, but I contend that the action we are taking in this matter will injure the credit of the country in the markets of Europe. It has been so ill-advised and it has been so hurried, taking into account the minute of council that was issued with the knowledge of the right hon. leader of the government, laying down certain platforms and making certain statement entirely different from the arrangement which .it is now sought to force through parliament, that it will not be a surprise to us if our credit is destroyed or injured so that to the amount of money that this road is supposed to cost us will have to be added one-thiru.
I did make the statement that the money will cost us 4 per cent, and I should not be surprised if it does cost us that, thereby entailing a serious loss upon this country. Why should not the government be perfectly willing to leave this matter in the hands of the commission they have appointed for the purpose of dealing with such business and let them ascertain the facts and place them before the House ? I can assure the right hon. leader of the government that if they report in favour of the scheme the

members on this side of the House will give it careful consideration.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) if he has ever expressed himself as being in favour of what was the Grand Trunk Railway's original scheme of building a road from North Bay to Winnipeg?


William Rees Brock: That was not the original scheme. The original scheme was to build a road from North Bay to north of Lake Winnipeg and Port Simpson. Winnipeg was not mentioned in the original scheme.


Tiie MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Would the hon. gentleman tell us the towns, cities and inhabited portions of the territory between North Bay and Port Simpson to be traversed by this line, and would he say how long the road is between North Bay and Winnipeg ? He has talked about the line being 1,800 miles from Moncton. Would that uot be about 1,100 miles of that same road that he is in favour of and that he has spoken in favour of?


William Rees Brock: The hon. gentleman is very anxious to make out a case. He is taking a great deal for granted. I did not express approval of the road from North Bay to Winnipeg. The statement came out in the ' Gloibe ' from Mr. Hays and Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson that it was the intention of the Grand Trunk Railway people to build that road, and I said it would be a great advantage if they would do it because it would open up a new country, but would the hon. gentleman name the cities and towns between Quebec and Winnipeg this this line is going to touch ? He asks me to name the towns along the line that I expressed my approbation of and which was to be built by the old Grand Trunk Railway Company. Would he name the towns between Quebec and Winnipeg that this line is going to serve? There is the w'hole case. I can appeal to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. I say the time will come, if hon. gentlemen persist in pushing this scheme through, when they will rue it very much indeed. I only intended to make a few remarks, but the right hon. gentleman was kind enough to suggest that I should make a few remarks and I have briefly done so.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I was speaking in all kindness to the hon. gentleman. He says that the railway from Quebec to Winnipeg goes through an uninhabited country. He says there is no trade for it, and he asked me what towns and cities it would pass through, which at present are existing. We say that towns and cities would spring up as a result of this. If that be the objection to our scheme,
I want to know why the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) said that the Grand Trunk scheme from North Bay to Winnipeg


William Rees Brock: I beg pardon.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, to Port Simpson-but the hon. gentleman understood it was going to Winnipeg.


William Rees Brock: No, they spoke of building a branch north of Lake Winnipeg to Port Simpson. Do not lose sight of the fact, that I did not understand then that the government of the country were going to finance the scheme. I understood it was to be done by the Grand Trunk Pacific themselves. I am very much afraid that the Prime Minister is being seriously misled by just such statements as that made by the Minister of Customs. I am objecting to rushing into this country until we have absolute knowledge of the engineering difficulties, and as to whether it is possible to get these grades which the hon. member for North Norfolk speaks of. This country will demand that information and it will get that information yet, and it may be a surprise-I won't say to every gentleman opposite-but it will be certainly a surprise to the leader of the government.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will have to put up with it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I again ask the question. Has not the hon. member (Mr. Brock) said, that the Grand Trunk should receive a bonus for building the road from North Bay to Winnipeg, but not over the prairie section ? Now, then, having said that, he objects to the government's scheme because there is no traffic at present on the route between, we will say, North Bay and Quebec. It is about 1,100 miles from North Bay to Winnipeg, and it has only three or four hundred miles further to go to Quebec, therefore the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) is approving of building 1,100 miles of this road.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He approved of the building of it by the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: These gentlemen opposite are changing their ground again. What has it got to do with the location of the line, who builds it ? There were no more towns and cities on that line under the scheme proposed by the Grand Trunk than under our scheme. The best railway men we have in the country, tiie Grand Trunk Railway, proposed to build the 1,100 miles between North Bay and Winnipeg out of the 1.400 between Quebec and Winnipeg, and yet the hon. gentleman is afraid of this whole scheme, although he has only refused to sanction the 300 miles from North Bay to Quebec.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Three hundred miles from North Bay to Quebec.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Three hundred or four hundred miles.


William Rees Brock: I am bound to think that the Minister of Customs is making it a point to misrepresent me.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have no (iesire to do that whatever.


William Rees Brock: I never stated that I was in favour of the government lending aid to build the Grand Trunk system of railway between North Bay and Winnipeg. But when I was told they were going north of Lake Winnipeg, I said that entering as they were a new country, it was a matter of consideration whether the government would not be justified in assisting them over that portion of the road, which was not on the prairies. I do not require to go very far to condemn this scheme. The Minister of the Interior probably knows more about it than all the other ministers put together, and he has stated that there are 400 miles of that country even between Winnipeg and Quebec, that will for all time be unfit for agricultural purposes.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is the portion the Grand Trunk Railway were going through.


William Rees Brock: Wait now ; you cannot draw any red-herring across the track this time. The company said that with a view of reaching the Pacific they were going to extend their line, not the government line, by the Grand Trunk line. They didn't mention the day they would get to the Pacific, and when I expressed that opinion it was certainly understood that the road was to be financed by the company and not by the government. A great deal of ridicule was attempted to be heaped on the member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) in relation to his statement as to the amount of capitalization that would be represented by that road in the course of fifty years. But the hon. gentleman only gave his own experience, and the experience of other roads in this country. The original capitalization of the Intercolonial Railway was about .$21,000,000, and now it is about $73,000,000, so that it has multiplied by three in twenty-five years. I tell you that somebody is going to lose by this Grand Trunk Pacific road from Winnipeg to Quebec, and somebody has to pay the daily and weekly and yearly loss on the running of that road. Who is going to pay that loss ?


An hon. MEMBER.: The Grand Trunk.


William Rees Brock: Do not make any mistake about that. It is the people of this country who will pay that loss. When we want to prove that our country is prosperous we cite the profits made by a railroad and the converse of that proposition is true. *If it can be shown that this road, for even ten years, does not pay for the grease to oil the wheels, what kind of an affect will that have in England when we go to float other loans for public projects in this country ?


Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: Suppose that we should want money to improve our water-ways, and our ports, and our canal system, what will be the effect on the money market when it is known that the government has such a poor opinion of their own railway project, that they don't think it will pay interest for ten years ? I contend that the scheme which they are now propounding will bring discredit on the country, and the discredit that the member for North Norfolk attaches to it in regard to its want of stability, is one of the worst troubles connected with the whole business.


Mr. MURRAY.: The discussion that has taken place to-day has been so animated that some hon. members have almost got on their muscle. I had the pleasure of listening to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) discussing the feasibility of transportation by water ns compared with transportation by rail. The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) tries now to make out that the government is resting its whole case on the cheap transportation of wheat, and other bulky products from Winnipeg to the sea-board. I take issue with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) on that. The Prime Minister has explained the position of the government in that respect, and I also take issue with the right hon. gentleman when he says, that either at this date or at a future date, railways will compete with water transportation. I do not believe they ever will, in our time or in the time of the next generation anyway. It is against nature that they could. I am too practical a business man and have too much experience to believe anything of the kind.
My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Public Works says it can be defended for colonization purposes. So it can ; but still he throws cold water on the scheme. It can be defended. It will open up and develop a country that is now undeveloped. There will be Wheat grown in that country more approximate to the east which can be moved by rail : but when it is said that the Canadian Pacific or any other railway will move bulky freight such as wheat from the North-west to the seaboard to the advantage of the producers, I take no stock in that statement. It will more properly apply to all classes of freight except bulky products of the country, which must be moved by water. I say that the scheme of the Ottawa and Georgian bay canal is a proper scheme. That scheme was approved of by Hon. Alexander Mackenzie and by Sir John Macdonald, and they were sound in their views; and I am surprised at the hon. member for Missisquol (Mr. Meigs) getting up and saying that he had some experience of water transportation, and that because some railway was constructed to parallel the water stretches on which he was doing his boating business, he had forsooth to

throw up the sponge and went out of business. Well, Sir, he had not much pluck. When I had competition in business, I fought it and generally succeeded. Competition is the life of trade. I am sorry my hon. friend takes such little stock in water transportation. He says building canals is money thrown away. That is not the experience of France, Germany, the United States or even Canada. Hon. gentlemen have advocated the St. Lawrence water-route. I am sorry that they appear to have overlooked the great advantages which this Canada of ours is going to derive from the construction of the Ottawa and Georgian bay canal. Sir, I am astonished at such sectionalism, such selfishness. Perhaps that expression is too strong, but I am afraid their leaning is a little in that direction. I am sorry that they do not look at this question in a broad, patriotic way as Canadians. If they did, I think all hands would join me in this scheme. I have not lost faith in the present administration. They move pretty rapidly. The engineers, from Walter Shanly, in 1856, down to McLeod, in 1900, have reported in favour of this scheme. They say there are no insurmountable physical features, and Mr. Wisner, an eminent engineer from the United States, has estimated that it will not cost over $80,000,000. That is based on surveys already made, and is for a depth of 20 feet of water ; and Mr. McLeod, in revising the estimates of Mr. Wisner, says he is $7,000,000 above the mark. The hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) spoke very enthusiastically in my county in favour of that project, and in favour of improving the French river immediately. But, Sir, in his addresses in this House during the present session, he has not spoken so strongly on that subject, though he says it is well enough to improve the French river as far as North Bay. Some hon. members have said that he was satisfied so long as he could make connection there with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not know what they meant by that. Then he tried to alarm the House by saying that the expenditure from North Bay east would be very considerable, and that we could make no proper calculation of the cost. But the hon. gentleman is not an engineer any more than I am. We must pay some regard to the statements of the engineers who have exploi'ed the route and made the estimates ; and I believe that now, with the improved manner of tunnelling and excavating rock, we can construct the Ottawa and Georgian bay canal for less than $80,000,000. Even if we cannot, and if it should cost $40,000,000 more, it would be money well invested by this country for having such a means of transporting the bulky products of the country, and opening up the deposits of wealth which we have along the route. These things cannot be moved by rail; it would cost too much to move them. If wheat were moved by rail
from Winnipeg, the cost of transporting it would eat everything up, so that there would not be much left for the farmer. The Ottawa and Georgian bay canal would solve all these problems. I did not intend to say anything to-day, but when I saw hon. members of this House in rich fighting humour, I thought I should take a hand in.


James Clancy: There are two things which have come out very prominently in this debate to-day. We have had the acknowledgment of the right hon. the First Minister that the shippers of this country would pay for the blunders of the scheme now before us. That is a statement on which we may lay fair emphasis. My hon. friend beside me tells me that it will be the wheat grower, the toiler, who will pay for them. The shipper will pay in the first instance, and the farmer ultimately; that is what it means by a very easy translation. We have also the right hon. First Minister relying on the horn, member for North Norfolk as the authority for that statement. No one doubts the hon. member for North Norfolk's ability. We	are told	that he	isan expert,	which is	a very	apt term.The hon.	gentleman	is an	expert	atturning corners. I would like to ask the right	hon. the	First Minister	if
he has any more assurance that the hon. member for North Norfolk will not change his opinion on this question before the session closes-because it would take some days yet-than he had that he would not change the opinion he expressed last May. Let me call his attention further to that hon. gentleman, in whom he seems to have such implicit confidence. I believe that hon. gentleman expressed some opinion on the right hon. gentleman himself once. I want to know if he has such implicit confidence in that opinion in regard to himself ? We were told by the hon. gentleman not long ago that the province which justly feels pride in the right hon. leader of the government should be garrisoned. I want to know if the right hon. gentleman has implicit confidence in the opinion of the hon. member for North Norfolk on that subject ? We all recognize the ability of the hon. member for North Norfolk, especially when he appears to the best advantage, when he is facing both ways. I would like to know what position he occupies in this House, even if he had been consistent in his past life, that we should accept his opinion on a question of this kind. The hon. gentleman has much skill in manipulating and garbling extracts, and turning them to account; but after giving an opinion one day, he rises the next day and, without a twinge or a blush on his cheek, says that he was quite wrong, and that he has since received new light. We had it from his own lips since this session began that he was opposed to this scheme, until he went into caucus, holding that it would be disastrous for the country.


Mr. CHARLTON.: I beg to deny the assertion of my bon. friend. He is misquoting me and misrepresenting my position.


James Clancy: I should be very sorry to misquote the hon. gentleman. He is very properly jealous of his statements in matters of that kind. I do not know any hon. gentleman whom we should be more accurate in quoting, because it is always to our advantage to do so. Let it go to the country in regard to the hon. member for North Norfolk that there has never been one great question in Canada on which he has not faced both ways. I defy any hon. gentleman to point to any great question, on both sides of which the hon. gentleman has not been found, and he has never thought proper to apologize for the contradictory course he has taken on any one of them. We have it clearly set forth by the Prime Minister that he relies solely upon the great ability of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), as a railway expert, to justify him in forcing this scheme through the House. Well, I never heard that the hon. member for North Norfolk ever built any railways or even ran one. True he is a large shipper, but only in one particular branch, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem of transportation.


George Taylor: He can turn a short curve.


James Clancy: Yes, he can do that, but that is different to hauling freight.


George Taylor: He wants favourable curves.


James Clancy: He certainly has a partiality for curves. The First Minister told us a moment ago that the leader of the opposition proposel to purchase a certain portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway and improve the grades for the purpose of making that a road over which grain might be hauled. While that is perfectly true, what the leader of the opposition proposed to do was to utilize that road for the purpose of carrying grain, not during the whole period of the year, but after the close of navigation. Does anybody imagine that the proposed railway will carry grain, if it should carry any, from Winnipeg to Moncton ? No one can close his1 eyes to the fact that you may build as many railways as you like north of the height of land, the grain will go by way of Lake Superior during the navigable season. We are told that a pamphlet is to be published giving all required information about the route and the country to be traversed. We will no doubt have a worthless pamphlet circulated, which will simply give extracts, where they are favourable, and leave out the rest. You can take reports and select here and there favourable portions, but you will find many others of the opposite character, and the former will be given as indicating the nature of the whole country. The favourable portions of the reports will be published, and the others


James Clancy: i
I carefully omitted. The right hon. the First j Minister has repeatedly told us that there j are mountains of information at hand, but he has been unable to designate where they are to be had. He has been unable to point to a single authority except the hon. member for North Norfolk. One would think that by this time the right hon. gentleman would have been able to refer us to the particular authority on which lie relies for the information which we have been unable to find. If we could even find the mole-hills of information, much less the mountains, we would be satisfied. The people of this country, Sir, are not going to be satisfied with the mere wave of the hand of the First Minister. Through that country there have been some surveys made, but all we have is a mere summary of those surveys, and not one survey has been made precisely upon the line proposed by the hon. gentleman. Yet we are told that there are mountains of information. What are the reports to which the right hon. gentleman refers ? Where are they to be found ? Well, I confess my mental blindness


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not to blame for that.
Mr-. OLANCY. There are a good many things I have ceased to hold the right hon. gentleman responsible for, and that is one of them, but there are some things I cannot acquit him of. I cannot acquit him of having made, in the most deliberate fashion, a most wholesale statement, unwarranted by any facts yet disclosed. We are told that a pamphlet is to be published. I venture to say that it will consist of the extracts given by the Minister of the Interior, and which are utterly valueless. He read extracts from the reports of surveyors, having reference to a particular locality on the river here and there as if they applied to the whole country. Such extracts are worse than valueless ; they are misleading. I venture to predict that this pamphlet will be a mere garbled collection of favourable extracts, intended to delude the people instead of to instruct them.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: In desiring to say a few words on the question engaging our attention, I must say at once that I have no justification for so doing, except the wish to consume a little of the time which is being deliberately wasted. If I supposed that by taking up some portion of that time, I was prolonging this debate, I would not rise in my seat, but I am quite satisfied that time is being deliberately dissipated, and we might as well take a hand in the thing as leave our friends opposite to do it all. That is my only justification. AVe wasted all day yesterday and to-day. There has not been an argument advanced in these two days that has not been made fifty times in the course of this discussion. We heard all the transportation arguments of the bon. member for St. Mary's division

(Hon. Mr. Tarte) fifty times before. TUe only new thing he introduced yesterday was that, some way or other, this proposition will interfere with some particular solution of the transportation problem which he himself desires.
We have heard that wheat question discussed over and over and over again and the statement made that we cannot carry wheat from Winnipeg all-rail in competition with water carriage. If that was a new proposition and we had never heard it before we might profitably waste a few hours in listening to it. But I venture to say that in the speeches, almost 100 of them that we have heard in the last six weeks this same wheat question has been trotted out fifty times, and will be trotted out fifty times more before the close of this debate. I understand that owing to the illness, which we all regret, of the hon. leader of the opposition, it is necessary to dissipate time (until he gets well and can again control the situation. Whether that be true or not, there certainly ought to be a disposition on the part of our friends to confine themselves to the question under discussion; and to leave wheat, which has nothing to do with this subject, alone. We have heard the wheat question discussed until we know exactly what it costs to take a bushel of wheat from Winnipeg to Montreal, and it is problematical what it will cost to take it from Winnipeg to Quebec. I heard yesterday my hon. friend from West Toronto state that for years the country has been clamouring for another transcontinental railway. Now we have had that trotted 0)ut, and we have exhausted the newspaper quotations to show the people that we require another transcontinental scheme. Now cannot we drop that for once and take up the matter under discussion ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does my hon. friend refer to me ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: No.


Albert Edward Kemp: You said West Toronto.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I meant East York. You are all so mixed up that it is hard to separate you. I must confess that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mi-. Clarke) does not often fall into the weakness that my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) does. We have heard it said that this is a good election proposition. That statement has been repeated over and over again. It has been said that it is a good election proposo-tion for New Brunswick and the maritime provinces, for Quebec, for Ontario, for Manitoba and for the North-west Territories, and British Columbia. My hon. friend from East York stated that point as if it was a new argument and as if that was the whole intention, the whole reason for building this railway. If it is true that the construction of that railway is a good election proposition it is the best compliment that can be paid to the gentleman who originated the scheme. My experience in politics is that a good election proposition is good government, and that a bad election proposition is bad government. You cannot put a scheme before the people of Canada as a good election proposition which is not good government unless you take the people of Canada to be fools, and to be easily caught. If this scheme is endorsed by the people and is a good election proposition, it is a good scheme on its own merits. The best endorsation you can have for it is that you believe the people will endorse it. But you say it is a bad scheme in itself, and therefore the people must be either fools or knaves ; that is the only deduction you can make. I can assure the members of the government that if they have a proposition to submit to the people which is a good election scheme for all parts of this country it is a good thing for the country or the electors will not endorse it. Now we are told over and over again that we have not sufficient information to enter upon this scheme. We have quite enough information to enable the Grand Trunk Railway to go into it from Quebec to the coast, we have information enough to justify us in guaranteeing the bonds to an almost unlimited extent for the very same scheme, but not information enough to justify the government going into it. If the government were in possession of sufficient information to show our friends on the other side of the House that this road is going over an absolutely level country with no grades at all, they would still say the scheme was not a good one. It is impossible to get enough information to satisfy you, and if we got information enough to prove that this was likely to be a financially successful proposition the hon. gentlemen opposite would want to know the number of rails or spikes to the mile, the number of curves in a mile, and they would find objections in some way. That is what they think they are here for, not to perfect this scheme, but to find fault with it and to turn the microscope upon its imperfections. They have said over and over again that we have not information enough and if this discussion lasts two weeks longer, we will have the same old problems trotted out what is it going to cost to carry a bushel of wheat from Winnipeg to Quebec ? I would like to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) what he will sell goods for five years hence, or to say that he will sell a certain article of pressed ware for so much.


Mr. BENNETT.: Try him with a contract.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I suppose he will make as good a bargain as the government has made with the Grand Trunk.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If he did not make a better bargain he would be in bad shape.

Mr. HE YD,. If he makes a better bargain he is bound to be a rich man, because under this contract, the other party has all the risks and we have all the benefits. You would judge from the opinion expressed by our hon. friends that the Grand Trunk Railway did not know what they are doing. Does any one suppose that Mr. Hays and the gentlemen behind him who are supplying the money, who are willing to put this money into this unproductive scheme and cun the railway for fifty years, do not know what they are doing.


James Clancy: They do not put a dollar into it.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Not a dollar in it, and that is the reason you should pass it. All you have to do is support the scheme, and if the Grand Trunk do not put a dollar in it the whole thing- falls to the ground, and the people's money will not be lost. I assume that the Grand Trunk people know what they are doing, and if they intend to build a railway from North Bay passing north of Winnipeg, and putting a branch line to Winnipeg, and going out to the coast, they have carefully considered this scheme and they believe it will be a good business proposition, and one which will make money for the Grand Trunk Railway. What we are doing is simply adding about 400 miles more from North Bay to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton. We are not seriously interfering with the original Grand Trunk proposition. They proposed to go from North Bay, but they were forced by the very gentlemen who are now finding fault with the road, to go to Quebec. Not a voice was raised in the Railway Committee room protesting against the extension to Quebec on the ground that we had not information enough. Every man in that committee supported that proposition, and now hon. gentlemen opposite are finding fault and saying that we have not sufficient information. I do not care if we have enough information or not. The Grand Trunk are behind this scheme, they guarantee ,us against loss, and I have a suspicion that they know what they are doing. The very fact that they are guaranteeing to run the road for fifty years is an assurance that the government has not made much of a mistake.


Mr. BELL.: They cannot pay dividends.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: How do you know ?


John William Bell: I know by their reports.
Mi-. HEYD. Do you know more than Mr. Hays does ? I am inclined to think that Mr. Hays and Sir Charles Rivers-AVilson and the managers of the railway know better than my hon. friend from down below whether they will be able to pay dividends, sincere and conscientious as he is. Although he has no money in this scheme he is already predicting failure, while the men who are going to put their money in are quite satisfied with It.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Our friends laugh. If they do not put the money into the scheme the whole thing falls to the ground. They were satisfied a few weeks ago that the Grand Tr,uuk Railway were going to build a railway from North Bay to the coast, and they were not going to take long. Air. Hays stated in the Railway *Committee that they would build that road in two years and would guarantee to build it in five years, and no one doubted the proposition, because Mr. Hays knew what he was talking about, and we were all anxious to have him go into it. The thing that gratifies me is that the government is going into that part of the scheme which in the future will control to some extent the carrying trade. They are not assisting a railway from Winnipeg to Quebec, and putting it into the hands of a private corporation for their sole advantage. The unearned increment of which we hear so much will come to us at the end of fifty years with all the improvements that will have taken place during that period of time. And then the railway will be handed over to us when it may be expected to be of some use and likely to be a benefit to this country.
They tell us we have not got information enough. Why, for six weeks we have been thundering away over this question, and when our friends opposite want more information they will trot out some newspaper opinion of some three-cent writer, probably hired for $5 or $6 a week, that so and so is going to take place, and in all seriousness is brought to the attention of the First Minister, and he is asked if it is the intention of the government to withdraw from this scheme, and whether they are going to make great changes in this railway. Well, he is answered. It is not the intention of the government to do anything of the kind. Then another gentleman gets up and says that the Atinister of Customs is hostile to this scheme, and that he actually intended to withdraw from the government. That statement is made in all apparent seriousness, and the Alinister of Customs tells him there is nothing in it. Then some newspaper says the Alinister of Finance was almost going out of the cabinet because he was opposed to this scheme, and the Alinister of Finance gets up and makes a magnificent speech endorsing this scheme from end to end. They keep trotting out newspaper quotations when they have not got minds fertile enough to invent some argument against this scheme. Now, I assure the government that the arguments of our friends opposite have not had any weakening influence upon us, that we are still prepared to stand by the Premier in this matter. I would say to the Premier : Don't let those earnest and sincere remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Broc-k)who is now looking at me, influence you. He will vote for an old canal,

with scows, and tugs, and lose a lot of money on them, but he will not vote for this scheme. Now, I have too high an opinion of the intelligence and business acumen of the hon. gentleman to suppose that he -would have hung on to the canal that runs from Brantford to the Grand river, with the intention of running it against the railways. They have abandoned that enterprise and turned it into electric power, and they are making money. He, Mr. Meigs, sold out as soon as he found, his scows were not going to pay. What would the hon, gentleman do if he had a lot of cotton on hand and knew that the market was going to drop ? He would unload his cotton. So I would advise the ministers not to be too much impressed by his earnestness in this matter. He don't mean what he says. He intends of course to be sincere. I believe he is conscientious, but there is such a thing as being conscientious, and at the same time being absolutely blind to the arguments of one's opponents. We know that some men are afflicted with colour blindness, they are unable to distinguish red from green. They are mentally willing to do it, but from a physical defect of the eye they cannot do it. In the same way, some men are so politically constituted that they cannot see any virtue in an opponent. There are men in this House who cannot see anything good in this railway.
gome hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Certainly, that is what I say, it is constitutional with them, and they cannot help it. If this railway was planned by the most experienced railway engineers in ^his country, if it was endorsed in its financial aspect by the most capable financiers in this country, if it was propounded by a government with the most earnest and serious intention of doing good to this country, in their minds there would be nothing good in it. During the seven years I have been in this House nothing that was ever propounded by this government had any merit in the eyes of hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not remember one important contribution they have made towards the legislation of this country during the past seven years, and I have never heard any one on the other side lift up his voice to support any legislation this government has proposed. It is a chronic condition with them to oppose everything that the government introduces into the House. But I can assure the Prime Minister that the more we hear our friends on the other side criticising and condemning this scheme, and reading newspaper quotations against it, the more firmly we are convinced that this is a good enterprise, otherwise they would adduce some sound, logical arguments why it should not be gone on with. The argument that we have not got enough information has no weight with me, particularly as we have behind us a reliable 331
and live railway corporation who assumes all the initial responsibility.
Mr. TAYLOIt. The hon. gentleman has made a speech


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I was only killing time.


George Taylor: I am glad the hon. gentleman admits the fact that he is killing time. He made a speech of two hours in length on the main question, and now, when the opposition are anxious to criticise the Bill fairly, he gets up and says that he is killing time. We are anxious to get on with the Bill. The hon. gentleman made a speech two hours in length and he gets up to-day and repeats a great deal of that speech, travels all over the country from one end of it to the other, killing time. Now. after being here for five or six months, I do not think the hon. members of the House are anxious to kill time-although the government have spent about five months hatching this scheme before they brought it down to the House. Then the hon. gentleman says : We are willing to go to the country, we have got a business government and we are willing to go to the country on this question. The Prime Minister, when he formed his government, said he had surrounded himself with business men who would do business on business principles. Now my hon. friend from Brantford has been a member of the town council.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Of a city council.


George Taylor: What would he think of a city council, or a town councillor a village council, or a county council, entering into a contract with contractors to put down a system of waterworks at a cost of half a million or a million dollars without a mandate from their electors, signing a contract with a company to put down a system of waterworks at a cost of half a million or a million dollars, without having a survey made or an estimate of the cost, or anything else ? Would his electors return my hon. friend and his associates to power in such a case ? What is the first thing a business man will do when he is going to build a house ? He will get his plans and specifications, and an estimate of the cost. So will a municipality, if they are going to commence a work. The councillors of that municipality first prepare plans and estimates and then submit them to the people in the form of a by-law, and let the people pronounce whether they will vote a sufficient amount of money to carry on the work or not. What has this government done ? They come down with a proposition to spend $125,000,000 of the people's money, without ever saying, by your leave. Then the ministers of the Crown, the advisers of the Governor General, come to this House and make statements why they are doing this. It is true that one of the ministers, the ex-Minlster of Railways, said the reason



they were doing it was because Senator Cox couldn't wait. But what reasons have the Prime Minister and his colleagues given ? The Prime Minister made a statement that any school boy in the country will contradict, when he goes on the platform to defend his policy. His principal reason was that the British government would be shut off from communication with Canada, and that we could not ship our goods over to England if the American government took it into their wise heads to cancel the bonding privileges; that we were locked in for five or six months in the year by ice, and that we could not ship wheat, nor a carload of cattle, or anything else, to the sea-board. Why, Sir, any little school boy will say to the Prime Minister : I have been looking at the map.
We have our water-ways for seven months in the year, and we have our Intercolonial Railway down through the maritime provinces and we can ship our goods all the year round. The right hon. gentleman thinks he makes out a strong argument when he says that we should build this road because the Americans may take it into their wise heads to abrogate the bonding privilege. It should be beneath the dignity of any cabinet minister to make a statement in this House that he cannot go upon the platform and justify. Any school boy might get up and contradict such a statement as that. What did the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) say ? He made a statement that the proposal of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) meant buying 57 miles of railway in the United States. Is there a school boy in this country who will not contradict such a statement as that ? There are only three miles in the United States. It is 57 miles from Cotqau to the end of the road, but the road runs through American territory for only three miles to connect with an American road. The youth of this country reading the statements of the hon. Postmaster General and of other hon. ministers which should be beyond question will be justified in saying that our ministers are making statements that are not true. The lion. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding)) says that they are going to build a road 1,S00 miles long for $30,000 or $40,000 a mile which means an expenditure of $55,000,000 or $60,000,000. Yet, the right hon. Prime Minister says that the road is going to cost the country only $13,000,000. The hon. Minister of Finance says that it is only going to cost the country $11,000,000. He says :	I
called in an actuary and he said give me $8,000,000 and I will buy an annuity and that will pay off the debt. Is there any school boy in the country who -will not see the absurdity of that statement ? Suppose that a farmer buys a farm for $10,000 and he proposes to give a mortgage and pay it off in annual payments but instead of that he is Mr. TAYLOR.
advised not to give a mortgage but to buy an annuity and pay off the debt in that way. These are the statements the hon. ministers are making in this House. There is not a boy growing up who has read the statements of the hon. ministers but will say : We condemn them. And they will condemn these lion, gentlemen not because of the statements they have been making but because of the unbusinesslike way in which they have gone into this contract and in which they are endeavouring to compel the people to go into debt to the extend of $125,-
000.000 to build this road. The debt is there and they are endeavouring to make the people believe that if they buy an annuity for $8,600,000 they will be able to pay the whole thing off. They do not tell the people that they are placing a mortgage on the farm of every farmer in this country to the extent of $35 per head. I am sorry that the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) was not in the House a moment


Tiie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Say it again.


George Taylor: When I made the statement that the hon. Postmaster General as a minister of the Crown ought to tell the truth, and that a minister of the Crown Should not make statements in this House which have no foundation in fact. Ministers of the Crown are looked up to and respected by the people and they are expected when they make statements to keep within the truth. The hon. Postmaster General said in his speech the other day that the-hon. leader of the opposition proposed to buy^the Canada Atlantic Railway and that 57 miles of it was in the United States. That is a statement that he made use of against his opponents when he knew that the Canada Atlantic Railway Company had only three miles of line in the United States.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Who said there were 57 miles in the United States ?


George Taylor: I have been led to look up to the judges sitting in our courts of justice and to ministers of the Crown as being men to whom young people should look up. We looked upon the judges of this country as being beyond reproach but by this Liberal government dragging them into polities-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Order, order.


George Taylor: They have appointed a judge


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Order.


George Taylor: I am not reflecting upon the judges.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Question.

Mi-. SPROULE. Did the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) confine Himself to the question ?


George Taylor: The hon. member for Brant travelled all over the country.


Tne MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Question.


George Taylor: I am alluding to the conduct of ministers of the Crown in making statements that any school boy would contradict. The hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) knows that any school boy would contradict the statements he made in his speech.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Question.


George Taylor: Mr. Chairman, will you please call the hon. Minister of Justice to order for interrupting me ?


Tne CHAIRMAN (Mr. Holmes).: I do not think the hon. Minister of Justice is out of order. He is perfectly in order and I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) to confine himself to the question under consideration and not travel so far away from it as far as the judges are concerned.


George Taylor: What is the question under discussion ?


Robert Holmes: The question under discussion is this clause in the Bill.


George Taylor: I disagree with you, Mr. Chairman, and I will appeal to the House if you have not since this Bill came before you allowed every hon. gentleman who lias spoken to travel away from the Bill. The question is whether the people have a right to be asked to assume an indebtedness of $120,000,000 to pay for this road.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 


George Taylor: If I said $560,000,000 1 would not tell a lie fifty-four miles long as the hon. Postmaster General did in the statement that he made in tins House by stating that the Canada Atlantic Railway had fifty-seven miles of line in the United States when there were only three miles


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. leader of the opposition stated that.


George Taylor: What would one of our school boys say of one of the ministers who got up in his place in parliament and made a statement that was not true ? I was drawing some comparison about the judges and the Chairman-I wish the Chairman who is paid for staying here to discharge his duties would remain in liis seat so that it would not be necessary to call in one of the members of the House who does not know the rules of the House at all.


Robert Holmes: I thought yesterday the discussion took a very wide range. That was mv conviction and I 331}
think the rules of the House will bear me out in saying that the discussion should have been confined to the clause under consideration, but the government allowed considerable latitude. I have allowed the discussion to proceed in this way while I have been in the Chair to-day to a certain extent but I still think they were wrong in doing that. I certainly think that the hon. member (Mr. Taylor) has travelled a good deal farther from the main question than any other hon. member who has spoken to-day.


George Taylor: The hon, gentleman who preceded me travelled a great deal farther from the question.


Robert Holmes: Not in so far as I understand it.


George Taylor: And you did not stop him. The railway that we are discussing, the hon. ministers say, will extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but as a matter of fact it commences down at Moncton and Moncton is not on the Atlantic at all, as I understand it. We are talking about a great transcontinental line running from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I have not gone over the range of the discussion to-day. I have not even referred to the railway from Moncton.


Robert Holmes: I do not object to your travelling over the whole line of railway if you desire to do so, but I do object to the hon. gentleman travelling over foreign subjects.


George Taylor: I am not travelling over foreign subjects, but I am discussing speeches of ministers of the Crown who have made statements which are not in accordance with the facts and which any school boy would contradict. I imagine the right hon. leader of the government going down to one of his constituents. They have appealed to the country and he goes down to one of' his constituents and asks him to support him in the election on this great railway project. The Prime Minister travels on his way from home, and he sees a little boy and he asks him : Is your father at home ? And the boy answers :	No ;
he is away canvassing ; we are going to have an election, and he is trying to bust the government for putting a tax of $25 a head on every man, woman and child in Canada, and as we have ten in the family we have to pay $250. The minister says to him : You have got fifty fine head of cattle there, and what are you doing with them, and the boy answers :	We are going to
send them to England for Easter beef. But the Prime Minister says :	How are you
going to send them there in the winter, because the Americans have abrogated the bonding privilege and you can't ship them to Halifax ; you will have to ship them to Montreal, and you will lose $10 a head on them because you cannot get them to


George Taylor: Yesterday and to-day lion, gentleman on the other side of the House wasted three-quarters of the time in unprofitable discussion. It is they who are doing the killing of the time. We are trying to make the Bill perfect, and to get through it as speedily as we can in order that we may go home, but they are obstructing the business of the House and talking at random. If they wish to spend hours in useless discussion, we on this side can put up man for man with them. The difference is, that our men will tell the truth, while their men are trying to mislead the people with regard to the whole thing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This school boy argument has some force no doubt in the mind of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor). Let me read to him what the leader of the opposition said about this 57 miles of the Canada Atlantic Railway :
The Canada Atlantic Railway extends from Depot Harbour on the Georgian bay to Coteau junction a distance of 342 miles. In addition to this, they have a line 57 miles in length between Coteau junction and Alburgh junction in the state of Vermont.


George Taylor: Well now, the Minister of Justice ought to go to school; It is quite true that the leader of the opposition said that, but what the Postmaster General said was that there were 57 miles of the Canada Atlantic Railway in the United States. The Minister of Justice is trying to mislead us, just as all the ministers are trying to deceive the people of this country, by making statements that are not in accordance with the facts. The Canada Atlantic Railway does run to Alburgh Junction but there is only three miles of the Canada Atlantic Railway in the United States. It runs from Coteau Junction through Bouaventure county.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Through what county ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am afraid we must both go to school. Bona-venture county is 400 miles away from the Canada Atlantic Railway.


George Taylor: Is there not a portion of the Canada Atlantic Railway in Bouaventure county ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


George Taylor: It is Beauharnois county I mean. I made a slip in the name. I am not so familiar with these French names as is the Minister of Justice. The Canada Atlantic Railway runs from Coteau Junction for 57 miles, through Beauharnois count}' to Alburgh Springs, to make connection with an American road for Boston ; but as a matter of fact only three miles out of this 57 miles are in the United States. If the Minister of Justice looks that up he will find that my statement is correct.


Mr. COCHRANE.: You didn't get the Postmaster General out of the hole after all.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I tried very hard.


Edward Cochrane: You made it worse.


Albert Edward Kemp: Iu connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme I spoke this afternoon in reference to freight rates, and the explanation of the First Minister was courteous as it usually is. I think I understood every point he referred to. I was not surprised, however, at the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Murray) who supports the government, stating that he did not believe in the theory propounded by the Prime Minister that the cereals and products of the west, can be carried over this road profitably to compete with existing roads. There are a good many members on the government side wTho hold the same opinion as the hon. member for Pontiac with regard to that. The hon. the leader of the House said that he had much confidence in the judgment of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) in respect to this matter, and I take it for granted that the right hon. gentleman rested his case on the statements made by that hon. member. If the right hon. gentleman, however, looks into the matter carefully, he will find that the opinion of the member for North Norfolk cannot be borne out by the facts. The leader of the government said that package freight would also find its way over this road as package freight finds it way over other railways. That no doubt will be the ease.
1 would like, however, to draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the fact that in the carriage of package freight the railways cannot compete with water transportation any more than for the carriage of grain. In the summer time and during the open season of navigation, package freight in the United States going west to Chicago or anywhere west of the great lakes, finds the water at Buffalo, or as soon as it can, and a great business is done there in transferring that freight from the trains to the vesels, by which it is carried to Chicago or other points on Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, where it is again transferred to trains and so proceeds west. That will be found to exist in many cases. Take another illustration. The Canada Atlantic is carrying large quantities of package freight from New York city. I am told by the authorities of'that railway that last year 25 per cent of the package freight from New York city that was destined to western points on Lake Superior and Lake Michigan was carried as far as Albany by barge or boat, there transferred to Canada Atlantic cars on the Delaware and Hudson River Railway, carried to Parry Sound by rail, there transferred again to water, and
then carried in vessels to Chicago and other points on the western lakes. What is our experience in this country ? My right hon. friend said that the manufacturers would use this road. If it is built, I am sure that they will use it, provided that its rates are as low as those of other roads. But running so far as it does from the industrial centres in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, I do not think it is going to be of much advantage to the manufacturers for the carriage of package freight. Probably 75 per cent of the manufactured products of Ontario and Quebec find their way to the North-west by all-water or rail-and-water routes to Fort William. This summer a new era has dawned in Canada in water transportation. The circumstances that exist between Buffalo and Chicago also exist to some extent between Montreal and Port Arthur. A new line of steamers has been put on, and is doing a tremendous business in carrying package freight, because its rates are much lower than the rates by rail between eastern points and Fort William ; and more vessels are being built. Package freight in future will be largely carried by water and by rail-and-water to the head of the lakes. The products of Ontario and Quebec are gathered up by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, and are taken to Owen Sound, Collingw'ood, Sarnia and Windsor, and are there transferred to vessels, which carry them to the head of the lakes ; and during the season of open navigation they will always find water as soon as possible.
I have not heard the right hon. First Minister state the reason why, after deciding to appoint a commission to investigate this question, he did not wait until that commission reported before introducing this railway project. Was the government afraid that the commission would not report in favour of it ? I say again that tills railway can never compete with the water route in carrying grain from the west to the east. At the same time, I believe that the time has come when the grand old city of Quebec will profit to a great extent by the carrying of grain by the water route.
The right hon. gentleman referred to the system of transferring grain to elevators. Sometimes there is one transfer, sometimes two. But when we remember that it only takes one or two minutes to take the grain out of a car and put it into an elevator, you may see how infinitesimal is the cost of such an operation. The elevators generally produce very good revenue and pay good dividends to their owners. But when the transportation companies own the elevators, they do not charge very much, and do not count very much on that part of the cost.
The Prime Minister also said that in the winter time grain was carried to some extent from the west to St. John, N.B., by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not

think there is any very great profit in that business, though it is done at a fairly high rate ; but if the Canadian Pacific Railway or the government railway had elevators on the Georgian bay, they could be filled with grain as late as the 15th of December, up to which date I understand vessels can operate between the western side and the eastern side of the lake; and if these elevators could be filled with grain up to that date, then the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is interested in the port of St. John, and the government railway, which is also interested in maritime ports, would have business in hauling that grain to those ports. But even if the Canadian Pacific Railway had more favourable grades and curvatures than it has, I do not anticipate that it would be able to carry very much more grain in the winter time than it does now.
The right hon. gentleman has this afternoon put forward this argument, that the farmers would be able to get their grain sold during the winter-. My experience is that the farmers do not have to carry over the grain themselves. They deliver it to warehouses and get warehouse receipts, on which they get their money. The grain is stored in that way.


William Forsythe McCreary: But how much does the farmer lose on it by selling it after navigation is closed ? He loses from six to eight cents on every bushel of wheat.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is a fair question for discussion. X have heard that question discussed.


William Forsythe McCreary: You cannot get a farmer in the west to tell you anything else. There is no discussion on it there.


Albert Edward Kemp: I have heard that question discussed very thoroughly, and X am under the impression that the cost of taking the grain out in the winter would amount to more than the storage charges. That is the impression I have gained from gentlemen who are posted in this business. At any rate, we have the fact before us that in the western states a large proportion of the grain is marketed in the fall, and the balance goes out in the spring. The right hon. gentleman has referred to the fact that the hon. leader of the opposition said something about the Canadian Pacific line north of Lake Superior being improved for the purpose of carrying grain. As I understand what the leader of the opposition said, he prefaced his observations by regretting that the commission had not been appointed, which the government had promised, but as regards water versus rail routes, it seems to me that he was altogether in favour of water competition. He gave the rate on freight from Minneapolis and St. Paul to Boston as 291 cents per hundred pounds, and showed that a similar rate prevailed between other points, from which it could Mr. KEMP.
be easily seen that the argument advanced by the hon. member for North Norfolk cannot be substantiated by the rates of freight existing at present on grain to the seaboard. Something was said about the congestion of traffic in the North-west. No doubt there was congestion last year, and that accounted for the demand for the construction of a new railway. A peculiar condition of affairs existed. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway were certainly not in a position to handle the traffic going in or coming out during last year. They had not sufficient rolling stock or motive power, but since last fall they have acquired a tremendous amount of both. Out of the $20,000,000 of extra capital, which the Canadian Pacific Railway have been allowed to issue, I am informed that nearly $15,000,000 was spent upon extra equipment. But it was impossible for any railway, either in the North-west or in the United States, to get delivery of the rolling stock last year which it required. This fall, however, I do not believe that there will be any cause for complaint. I believe that the farmers and shippers of the North-west will be satisfied with the facilities they have; and in any case this railway, even if built at once, could not relieve the congestion in the older settled parts of the country, because it will not go there. I am not discussing whether extra railways are needed in the North-west or not. I think they are, but I am discussing the eastern end of this proposed line, and I do not think that the hon. member for South Brant (Sir. Heyd) was justified in making the rambling speech he did. If we are going to get through we must keep to certain points, and the point I am discussing is the carriage of grain. What I contend is that the government shall not, on the information before ns, commit the country to this extravagant expenditure on a road away to the north, with the idea that it will carry profitably the products of the North-west. It cannot compete with the existing routes, and the carriage will not be reduced one iota.


William Forsythe McCreary: Are you talking of the products of the North-west or of its wheat ?


Albert Edward Kemp: I am discussing the argument of the right hon. gentleman. He said :
In one, two or three generations at least, perhaps more, these new settlers will grow cereals and probably nothing else.
That is what I am speaking of. The hon. the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sif-ton), before he went away, said that wheat) was carried from Kansas City to Chicago for five cents and that it could consequently) be carried from Winnipeg by this new line to St. John at 101 or 11 cents. I have taken the trouble to inform myself, and I find that wheat is not carried from Kansas City to Chicago at five cents per hundred pounds

but at fourteen cents, and that the average rate is twelve cents. Possibly there may have been some cutting down of rates at a particular period, just as sometimes there are excursion rates, but those are not things on which to build a case. I am therefore strongly of the opinion that the government have not sufficient information to warrant its going on with the eastern end of the road.


George Taylor: The hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) made the statement that the farmers lost six to eight cents a bushel through having to hold their wheat over through the winter on to the spring. I do not know what authority he lias for making that statement. Everybody knows that the grain buyers all over the country buy wheat in the fall and store it until the spring and sometimes lose eight or ten cents a bushel by storing it. But it all depends on whether the market is higher or lower in the spring than in the fall. If it is lower, they lose money. Then besides there is shrinkage in the grain which amounts to one or two cents a bushel. No matter how dry the wheat may be when it goes into the warehouse, you cannot weigh it out in the spring at what you took it in. I have been in the business some thirty years and have never shipped a carload of wheat to Montreal, St. John or Halifax in the winter, because the difference in the freight rates between rail and water makes it more profitable to ship it in the spring. That is done from the head of the lakes down, and even in those parts of the country, where there is no water communication, they get cheaper freight rates by rail in the spring than in the fall. The other day, in speaking on the proposition of the leader of the opposition, the Postmaster General said :
Of this four hundred miles of railway, fifty-seven miles of it are in the state of Vermont.
He was there referring to the Canada Atlantic Railway, and further on he said :
X am told that the market price of the Canada Atlantic Railway is hot less than $17,000,000, if it can be purchased to-day. At all events between these prices we can put It down as $15,000,000, and that includes the fifty-seven miles of railway in Vermont. What the government of Canada is going to do with fifty-seven miles of railway in the state of Vermont, I am at a loss to know.


George Taylor: How much has the Grand Trunk Railway in the United States ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am speaking of the government buying railways in the United States ; I am not speaking of private citizens doing so. If it is proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition or by the party supporting him, to expend the people's money in the acquisition of railways in the United States then a different proposition is involved.
These are the words of the Postmaster General in dealing with this purchase of the Canada Atlantic Railway. He says to the people of Canada : The opposition propose taking your money and buying 57 miles of railway over in the state of Vermont; you people in Canada are too loyal to support anything of that kind. That is what he, a minister of this country, Postmaster General and Minister of Labour, states to the people of this country. Surely the people of Canada would expect a gentleman with all these titles and a knight besides, he, Sir William Muloclc, Postmaster General, Minister of Labour, the vastest man thei'e is in Canada, before getting up to make a statement of that kind, to look at the map. Any school boy looking at the map of the Canada Atlantic Railway will see that there are only three miles of it on American territory, a little branch running out to connect with the Vermont line. Surely the Postmaster General, now that his words are quoted, will rise and apologize to the school boys of Canada, saying : I did not study the map of this country, I did not look at the new map published by the Department of the Interior showing all the railways of Canada, and among them the Canada Atlantic Railway, all of it on Canadian territory except a little three-mile branch. And then he tries to stir up the loyalty of young men, and he says : Surely you will not support the leader of the opposition when he proposes taking your money and buying a railway a part of which is in Vermont. Surely he will do the leader of the opposition justice and do himself justice by taking back what he must have known to be a misstatement of the facts.


Robert Holmes: Shall clause 2 be adopted ?


William Rees Brock: I do not think the Committee is ready or that this clause should be adopted in this way.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We do not want to press it. Do you desire to discuss it further?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Surely.	_


The PRIME MINISTER.: Oh, I understand now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend the member for Toronto has called attention this afternoon to a very important feature of this agreement. Had we not had the assistance of the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd), who says that he rendered us the service of killing time, we might have advanced the study of this feature of the agreement a little more. My Ron. friend (Mr. Ileydl came into the chamber and vodlc tip at least half an hour in giving us a general appreciation of the agreement, speaking from copious notes. I do not see that my hon. friend justified the statement that lie would help us to kill time and await the return of the leader of the opposition. The discussion which took place yesterday must have convinced the committee that

there is no desire to kill time. We are certainly unfortunate in being deprived of the assistance of the leader of the opposition, who has given this question, from its inception, very careful consideration. He would be the last man, I am sure-and I know it from his own mouth-that would desire to delay in any way the progress of this Bill through the House. We cer-taiuly have no such desire, but we consider it our duty, now that the general principle of this agreement has been discussed, to look into the details very carefully and we intend to perform that duty, even if it does take a little time. My right lion, friend will agree with me that, if the entire morning was taken up with a very useless discussion, that was attributable entirely to the friends of my right lion, friend, because when explanations are given such as were given this morning by the hon. junior member for Toronto (Mr. Osier), an incident of that kind might be terminated in one minute by the hon. gentlemen opposite doing what my right lion, friend's partisan did at the last minute this afternoon. Therefore, if the time has been wasted to-day it lias been wasted by a discussion that might very easily have been terminated much sooner. Is it our duty to give our attention to this* agreement ? I take it that it is, and I have foundation for that line of conduct in my right hon. friend's own course since the beginning of this session, and if the committee will allow me, I intend justifying the exercise of the powers we have, which we have used most moderately and reasonably since yesterday, by quoting from the Order in Council passed by my right hon. friend himself. After hearing the terms of that Order in Council, I think my right lion, friend will admit that in giving the details of this most important agreement the attention we are now giving, we are simply doing what my right hon. friend considered three or four "months ago was the absolute duty of every member of this House.
At six o'clock, committee took recess. After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 2 of the Bill is under discussion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Chairman, when you left the Chair at six o'clock I was suffering some irritation at the reproaches which the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) had made to gentlemen in opposition who were criticising the present measure, and I stated that we were following in that criticism the lines laid down by the hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches, particularly the line of conduct which fortunately was laid down by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Order in Council of last May, in which the principle was affirmed,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: which moreover has been admitted here since yesterday by iny right hon. friend, that having discussed at length, not according to the statement of my hon. friend from Brant, wasting time-because in that waste every member of this House participated on both sides-but having discussed at length the principle of the Bill it would be absurd for us merely to glance over each section of this important agreement, the most important that has been under consideration in this House for over a quarter of a century without examining that agreement in detail. My hon. friends know as well as I do that when a Bill incorporating a railway company, even of the most trifling importance, passes its second reading, it is submitted, in a committee which corresponds to this one, to the most careful scrutiny. We have already seen Bills of comparatively small importance discussed before the Railway Committee in all their details, for two. three, four and five sittings. Why should we not carefully examine the details of this Bill ? I referred to the rule laid down by my right hon. friend himself, in the Order in Council of May last. Let me just quote from that Order in Council, which is incorporated in the motion offered by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. It is said there that it was the opinion of the government on the 19th of May last, an opinion from which the government in every particular has departed, that:
The questions to be considered are complicated and involved, including among the objects to be sought the transportation of western products from place of production to the markets of the world.
This involves the consideration of their transportation ;
Prom place of production to Canadian seaports.
From place of production to the western ports of Lake Superior.
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. . . . It is obvious

Says the Order in Council prepared by the government:
-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. . . . The storage requirements of lake, river and
ocean ports. The harbour facilities	
The conditions with regard to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and generally any improvements, enlargements or other matters affecting the more economical and satisfactory uses of any Canadian channel of transportation by land or water.
Now, these were the views entertained by the government on the 19th of May last, and they contrast singularly with the position taken up even since yesterday, since we have been examining the details of this agreement. Yesterday we took under con-

sideration clause 2 of this Bill, and under that clause, as we are all aware, the whole agreement comes up for consideration. What more natural I ask than that we should, proceeding to discuss this agreement, take up the iirst clause, that is the first which has been under consideration since the House went into committee upon this Bill. Perhaps that clause, the most important of all in regard to the inquiry as to details, might have advanced some stages more had not the discussion supervened this morning, the length of which, it seems to me, was wholly attributable to the conduct of the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) who was called upon to make some explanation of the language he had used in a previous debate. Now, Sir, what is that clause, let me read it to the committee in order that we may know exactly the absolute pertinency of the inquiries we have made since yesterday :
A through line of railway, of the gauge of four feet eight and one-half inches, comprising two divisions, to he called ' eastern division ' and the ' western division,' respectively, shall be constructed, in the manner hereinafter mentioned, between the city of Moncton, in the province of New Brunswick, and the navigable waters of the Pacific ocean, at or near Port Simpson or some other port in British Columbia, as may be agreed upon. The eastern division shall comprise the portion of the said railway to be constructed from its eastern terminus, through the central parts of the province of New Brunswick and through the province of Quebec, by the shortest available line to the city of Quebec ; then westerly through the northern part of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and through the province of Manitoba to the city of Winnipeg ; and the western division shall comprise the portion of the said railway between the said city of Winnipeg, or some point on the said eastern division, and the Pacific ocean, extending westerly through the province of Manitoba, the North-west Territories and the province of British Columbia.
That is the clause which we are now examining, and I submit that it is useless to argue that the starting point of this western division is not at Winnipeg and the terminal point on the prairies at or near Edmonton. What we are considering now are the terms of the agreement, whatever may have been contained in the Bill incorporating the Grand Trunk Railway Company, this is a totally different Bill. We are dealing with an agreement made between the government of this country and that company, who will at all times claim that in the laying out of its line it is governed entirely by this agreement. Well, what more natural, in words as vague as these, that an indication of the route to be followed on the western division in these words, that it would ' start from some point at or near Winnipeg and terminate at the Pacific ocean '-what more natural, I say, than that we should ask the government to indicate to us, in a general way at least, where that railway is going to pass ? Here we are called upon to give a guarantee for a very
large amount of money for the construction of a railway, the greater part of which, as a continuous railway, we will have to construct ourselves at a cost- approaching if not exceeding $100,000,000. Now, when we ask the government, these broad and indefinite limits being given in the agreement, where the railway is going to pass, we are told a variety of things in a most unsatisfactory manner.
Now my right hon. friend, at the end of the debate ,upon that point yesterday, in answer to the member for East York (Mr. Maclean) who said that before spending the people's money we were entitled to know where this railway was going to pass, my right hon. friend said that we would know where this railway was going to pass when we had voted the people's money for the construction thereof. That was the ground taken by the right hon. gentleman. Those were his very words, and I submit to this committee that such an explanation as that in regard to the course of this railway upon the western division is not a satisfactory explanation upon which we can dispose of the details of this important measure. My right hon. friend in the earlier part of the debate said that the question of the determination of the location of this road was one that could only be settled after the surveys bad been made. In vain did I ask my right hon. friend not for the precise location of the road, but to give us some points by which we could see what would be the direction taken by the railway in that vast country, a country as large as Siberia. My right hon. friend would go no farther in his explanations and we were left in this position, taking up the details of this agreement and examining them, that, with a railway entering a country at least a thousand miles square, if not more, in which already there are two competing lines starting from some point near Winnipeg, from which at the present moment, as I am informed, there are ten lines of railway going out from the city in different directions, south, south-west, west, northwest, my right hon. friend would not even inform the committee to the extent of telling us whether the railway would go directly north, whether it would move towards the unsettled parts of the North-west, whether it would follow near the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the line of the Canadian Northern Railway, or pass between these two lines, or go to the north of the Canadian Northern Railway. Surely we are entitled, if not to precise information as to the location of the line in that district, at least to some Indication which would enable us to pass with intelligence over this clause of the agreement. The hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) realizes the insufficiency of the Prime Minister's answer to satisfy our minds upon an important detail, and the hon. Minister of Justice thought he would meet the objection

by stating that the railway could not be constructed unless in conformity with the general law. Plans have been made, profiles, drawings, .something to show exactly where the railway would pass, and the hon. Minister of Justice urged that as these plans and the -location had to be submitted to the government and receive the approval of the government we need not be anxious. In other words, the hon. Minister of Justice supposed that for ourselves we could be satisfied to pass over this clause, to be satisfied as to construction of the railway in the North-west Territories in a region which, as I stated, occupies a country a thousand miles square, without knowing in any way whether it would go south, west, or north, with any degree of precision, but that we should have sufficient confidence in the government, who, appreciating that important element, would not decide the question or approve of the construction without knowing exactly where the railway should pass. Even if my hon. friend supposes, which he may for the moment, that we have absolute confidence in the wisdom of the government upon that point, when he states that the government would not approve of the location of the road without having precise information, does lie imagine that we, who are called upon to vote this large guarantee, should vote it without even knowing in what latitude the railway is going to pass ? We have here hon. gentlemen from the North-west. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) spoke on this question yesterday. Could he not have given some information as to the settled parts of that region Could lie not have told us where the trend of immigration is moving, whether to the north, to the northwest, or between these two lines at present thrown out, one of them completed and the other in process of construction in the North-west ? Could he not have given us some information upon this point ? We are called upon to approve of this guarantee in reference to that section without knowing in any appreciable degree what we are guaranteeing, or what direction the road is going to take upon which the government guarantee will bear. As to the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) he did not even take that trouble. The Minister of Finance, as I read this discussion of the inquiry made yesterday, said in answer to the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) that the railway was going to be placed in such a position throughout the different provinces that it would by its direction secure the complete support of every province in the Dominion in the coming election. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) took, at any rate, a more reasonable ground, and he said that it was a matter of no consequence. My hon. friend who has great experience in parliamentary matters and in transportation questions even, took the ground that it Mr. MONK.
was an unheard of thing in the matter of a project of this kind that we should know even with a degree of approximate precision where this line is going to pass. Is it fair when we are asking a question not requiring an answer of absolute precision, but merely tending to inform the committee as to the direction which this line is going to take from the moment that it is under the control exclusively of the Grand Trunk Pacific when it is called upon, as we are informed, to supply the great need of the North-west Territories in the matter of transportation, that we should be given such answers by those who are specially charged in this House and before this committee to not only defend the Bill, but to place at the disposal of members of this House every piece of information available to enable them to decide intelligently upon the different clauses of this agreement ? We have heard it stated in this House, and the statement has gone uncontradicted, that down in the cellars, in the bowels of this building, there is a pamphlet already prepared, issued under the authority of the right hon. gentleman ready for distribution, a pamphlet that is intended to be circulated as soon as this discussion is terminated, and containing a mass of information, and laying before the public a great quantity of data which has not been placed at our disposal at all, not only the meagre data contained in the mountains of information referred to by the right hon. gentleman, but much in addition. These pamphlets we are told are in this very building. Is there a powder magazine a la Guy Fawkes intended to be exploded after this Bill is disposed of V If that be the case, I would ask my right hon. friend and the gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches why that pamphlet is not placed at our disposal now ?


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Are they keeping that for the 5th of November ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It may be. In the meantime, we might appoint a commission, as they do in England, to examine the cellar of this building, to find out if any such magazine exists now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Wasn't it the 7th and not the 5th ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Surely the committee does not think that the gist of the demands which we made yesterday, before we passed one of the most important sections of the Bill, were of an unreasonable nature. I leave it to every member of this committee, as men of business, is it right or proper to ask us to say that the section now under consideration is correct as it is, even admitting the principle of the Bill ? And, as has been stated in a newspaper, the Bill having been adopted in principle, we should all endeavour to see that its provisions are carried out in the best possible way. Does my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Me-

Creary) think it is reasonable for ns to say : There is need of a railway in that vast region of the west, but we will continue to ignore what direction, even in a general way, that railway is going to follow ? We suppose, from the terms of the agreement, that it will go through the Yellow Head pass if it is prolonged to the Pacific ocean; but whether it will go north through a region destined for settlement, or through a. region now settled or south, in the vicinity of the boundary of the United States, or pass in close proximity to the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway, is a matter of indifference to us ; we have not even the curiosity to know what direction that line will take ?	1 do
not think that is a proper attitude to assume towards legislation of this kind. No Bill would be accepted by the Railway Committee under these circumstances. Our lion, friends know that in that committee we invariably require to be informed, not only as to the terminal points of a railway for the construction of which a company is being incorporated, but also the general direction of the line. I, therefore, insist again that our bon. friend should state to us not exactly where that line is going to pass, but in general terms what will be its direction ; and the force of that inquiry will only increase when we come to the eastern division-when we come to sanction the construction of a line absolutely, and entirely at our own expense through the northern part of the province of Ontario, and still more the line in the province of Quebec ; because, as I have maintained already and will maintain again, that line through a very large portion of its route in the province of Quebec passes entirely outside of the present zone of colonization, far removed from the regions at present being settled, and where communication by railway is an absolute necessity, if we wish the work of colonization in that province to continue. It is only at the point where the line will cross the Laurentian range in the province of Quebec, and pass in a southeasterly direction to reach the city of Quebec, that it will begin to reach the first fringe of settlement; and do our lion, friends expect that we are going to sit here -we, whose duty it is to carefully scan every detail of a measure of this kind, we who sit for the province of Quebec-(and not know even approximately where that line is going to pass in that province ; that we are to be content with being simply told that, it passes in the vicinity of Lake Abl-tibi, and nothing more ? Surely, we would be fulfilling in a very indifferent manner our duty as members of the opposition in this House, if, when called on to look into every detail of an agreement of this kind -in making examination which my right hon. friend stated again this morning would require time and should be made with carewe got absolutely no information on this important question.
AVhile we were still discussing that question, another very important point cropped up, and one which necessarily must be considered under this very clause of the agreement ; that was, the question of the transportation of grain ; and what did we find ? We found our hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr-. Charlton), who, according to the right hon. Prime Minister, is one of the best authorities in this country on grain transportation and transportation in general, maintaining in this House a proposition which is not generally admitted by any means throughout this country, and which I venture to say is contradicted by the most prominent railway men in the country. That proposition was that at the present moment, not in the near future, grain could be transported cheaper by rail than by water.


John Charlton: Under certain conditions.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And my hon. friend stated that there was every prospect of this very railway serving not only as a colonization road, but as the cheapest way of transporting grain from the west to the port of Quebec. That was the proposition of my hon. friend. It was strongly controverted by the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and other members of this House. Not an expert in this matter, but one anxious to obtain information, I may say that that proposition has been denied to me by every man who has any experience of transportation who has spoken to me on the subject since this important question has been under discussion. We in this House who are not experts, who are lawyers, doctors, merchants, are called upon to consider, this most important question of the utility of this road as a grain transporting road, and we have not one jot or tittle of information on this subject. My hon. friends who sit on the treasury benches, although perhaps better informed than I am on this point, would be very much embarrassed indeed if they were asked to answer the very simple question in regard to the rates of freight and in regard itlo' the comparative value of water or rail as methods of transportation. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice or the acting Minister of Railways and Canals would be greatly embarrassed if they were asked a question on this point on which we all require information at this very moment-the rate of freight from the city of Winnipeg to the city of Quebec by rail anl water route. They could not answer. They could not give us the rate of freight per bushel of grain, by the rail and water route, and the rate by the water route solely, from Port Arthur to Quebec. We should have before us tabulated statements giving in
105S3

detail tbe rates of freight on every line at present carrying freight from the west to Canadian ports. The government promised that a commission would be appointed to enlighten parliament before any decisiou was submitted with reference to transportation, and I have no doubt that one of the first reports of that commission will be to place at our disposal complete information with regard to freight rates. Now, Sir, I submit that it is only fair for the government to tell us that they have a policy as to railway development in the North-west, and that they intend to construct their railway on certain definite principles. They should tell us through what kind of country this line will go when it starts out from Winnipeg west, and whether it will go through a country already settled and needing railway facilities, or whether it will go through a country susceptible of settlement and cultivation. They should tell us approximately where the location of this line will be. I cannot be told when I am asking for that information, that I am taking up uselessly the time of the committee. In order to facilitate the work of the committee we should at least have that information.


Haughton Lennox: I am very glad you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this afternoon when a gentleman of less experience occupied your position, there was a difficulty in getting him to realize that this measure cannot go through until the government will give us reasonable information upon which to form an opinion. I heard a gentleman on our side say that we were to facilitate its passage. In one sense that is perfectly correct. This Bill is to go through, but it will only go through if we get such information as will facilitate its passage. Although I recognize the power of numbers behind the government, I am not prepared to give up all hope yet that something may arise that will prevent this Bill passing through the House. I feel that as the discussion proceeds from day to day, there is some indication that enough will be elected to prevent the passage of this Bill. With the object of securing what we believe to be in the best interests of the country, we are endeavouring to elicit, even though it be by slow degrees, whatever information the government possesses. What has transpired justifies me in sayng that even if we were in possession of every particle of information which the government has, it would be no very adequate supply. However, that may be, we are entitled to a full and free statement of all the information they have. I resent and repudiate the insinuation frequently indulged in by gentlemen opposite, that we are discussing this Bill in order to delay the House. We are discussing it to elicit information, and it is a serious commentary upon the action of the government, that although we have been Mr. MONK.
discussing the Bill for weeks, not until we got into committee were we able to get any substantial information beyond the meagre quota in a fanciful speech made by the Prime Minister when he introduced the Bill. To-day the Prime Minister told us the one reason for railway transportation in the past being more expensive than water transportation, was, that transhipment could not be effected so rapidly from cars as from boats, and he hoped that in the near future this line would be able to do its transhipment as rapidly as freight is transhipped from boats. Now, that is all imagination and hope on the part of the Prime Minister, and yet that is the kind of thing we have to guide us in coming to a decision on this measure. Let the government give us the facts so that we can exercise our judgment upon them, and then there wTill be no great necessity for serious delay. The right lion, gentleman told us also that he believed there would be so great a saving in the near future by reason of improvement in railways, that carriage on land would be as cheap as carriage on water. He thought that this might be brought about by shipment from some point west of Winnipeg to the Atlantic coast without breaking bulk. Well, such an argument as that shows that the Prime Minister is driven to resort to very feeble arguments indeed, in defence of his project.
They must know perfectly well, if they consider the matter at all, that the question of rapid transhipment is not material when it becomes a question of carriage by rail from ocean to ocean. The right lion, gentleman has told us that in a few days a pamphlet will be published, containing all the information possessed by the government with reference to this transcontinental line, but if the government have valuable information in their possession, should they not have laid it before the committee rather than keep it for publication in a pamphlet ? In what form and under what auspices is this pamphlet to be issued ? Is it to be a campaign sheet or is it not ? I am sorry that the right lion, gentleman is not present, but perhaps the Postmaster General can give the information. When the measure was introduced a month ago, he had no information, and in the speech delivered a few nights ago he showed that he knew very little about it, but perhaps he may be able to tell us something about this pamphlet. Is it the intention to submit it, before publication, to this committee ? If that pamphlet is to be issued as an official document, professing to give a fair synopsis of the information in the possession of the cabinet and which ought to be in the possession of parliament, it ought to be submitted to the committee and be sanctioned by the committee. We have been informed to-day that the government expert is no less a person than the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). That

will be very reassuring to tlie people of this country, who have been wondering for some time where the government had stored away these mountains of information which they say they possess. It was difficult to understand wliat basis of fact the government had for entering into this bargain, and it will be reassuring .to the public to know that the hon. member for North Norfolk is the expert of the government at this crisis in our affairs. If the government could in any way add to the weight of the pamphlet, it would be by having it published with the imprimatur of the hon. member for North Norfolk as the chief government expert. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Heyd) admitted that he spoke solely for the purpose of killing time. It was hardly necessary for him to give that information to the House, for that appears to be the distinctive characteristic of all his speeches on this question. It is quite evident that, for some reason or other, the government are anxious for delay. The hon. gentleman, however, tried to make hon. members on this side his accomplices, but so long as the government refuse to bring down the information we require, which is necessary in order to obtain some idea of what is behind this scheme, the charge made by the hon. gentleman comes with ill-grace from that side of the House. The right hon. gentleman told us last night very emphatically that he has no more information to give as to the route and also that there will be no change or modification in the plan. We are dealing now with the second section, which provides for the ratification of the agreement between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. In what position will we be if we adopt the second section ? The right lion, the First Minister told us, with a considerable degree of satisfaction, that when the Canadian Pacific Railway was projected, the agreement was very indefinite. Even the Pacific port was not agreed upon, but was left to be settled later, and he said that that indefiniteness was in marked contrast with the present Bill. In this contract, he said, we have defined where the Pacific terminus is to be. I want to call attention to the fact that nothing of the kind is provided by the agreement. What it provides is that the Pacific ocean port shall be at or near Port Simpson or such other port in British Columbia, as may be agreed upon. Therefore, when we pass this measure, we leave it entirely in the hands of the government to settle where that terminus shall be. We leave it to the [DOT] government, if they see fit, to log-roll on this question, and make it serve such purposes as they may desire. We have a definite terminus in the east and an indefinite terminus in the west, and we have a line as indefinite and as uncertain as possible between these two points. In the Grand Trunk Bill, while we had certainly no very definite information, we had some
landmarks to guide the way. We had a definite point of commencement at Moncton. The road was to run through the central portion of the province of New Brunswick to the city of Quebec, then within fifty miles of Lake Abitibi, north of Lake Nepigon to Winnipeg, thence on to Edmonton and by the Peace river pass or the Pine river pass to the Pacific coast. Not one of these points.is mentioned in the contract. The line is left perfectly indefinite so that the determination of the route will be left at the discretion of the government and the company. So indefinite is the line that they canot decide the point of separation between the prairie and the mountain sections, and in the event of disagreement this is to be settled by arbitration. So vague and indefinite is the line of this railway that the draughtsman of this contract has seen fit to incorporate in it this brief clause-clause 3-which says :
The said line of railway shall be constructed wholly upon Canadian territory.
This clause has been inserted in order that this railroad, which is so vaguely described, shall not altogether escape from Canadian soil. I do not apprehend that this clause Is put in as buncombe or for the purpose of appealing to the electorate. I am to believe, is put in bona fide, with the honest intention of keeping this line so that it will not escape to the south or the north and slip from Canadian territory.


Samuel Hughes: Yesterday, during the progress of this debate, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was good enough to admit that the intention at the outset was that this line should be an American road and should pass from Winnipeg to Minneapolis, where it would! connect with the main line of the Grand Trunk, and that Duluth was to be the point at which the great lakes should be reached. The Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) intimated that it might reach some point about Nepigon bay. I presume they are endeavouring to make a deal for the *charter which Mr. Conmee holds there on account of his pulp and fishing concession. As the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) seems to be put forward to do the wind act in this business, I would like to ask him if be has figured out the questions of distances, freight rates and so on, in reaching Nepigon bay and the relative distances to Minneapolis and Duluth, from the North-west.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Samuel Hughes: I was askiug the hon. gentleman a question. He seems a little loath to answer. Let me tell the hon. gentlemen we are going to have more information before this Bill passes. Possibly the Minister of Labour could give us some information on this point or is he still figuring out the mileage of the Canada At-

lantic' Railway? Perhaps the minister can give us some information as to how much money has been speht on the Quebec bridge. Is it true that the bonds of that bridge company have been handed out at 60 cents on the dollar, in order that when the bridge is utilized for this railway the gentlemen may rake in the full 100 cents. All silent, all dumb ! Well, now, I do not know on whom else to call; the Minister of Public Works has nothing to do with this railway. I understand that he, like the Minister of Customs, is on strike. The Minister of Customs I was surprised to hear the other day rise and state that there was no truth in the rumour that he had been opposed to this project. I am inclined *to think, after gazing upon his face day after day, while this discussion was going on, while the ex* Minister of Railways and Canals was taking the stand he did, that in his heart the Minister of Customs would have followed the Minister of Railways and Canals had it not been for the sweets of office. Perhaps he may be able to tell us what is the distance between the point where this road will touch Nepigon bay and the main line of the road north of Lake Nepigon. Can the Postmaster General tell us? Can the chief whip ? Can the first lieutenant of the chief whip ? Can the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) tell us ?


Mr. BUREAU.: I cannot.


Samuel Hughes: Has the Minister of Labour given consideration, to this aspect of the case-that in ease the Grand Trunk Railway extend their line from Minneapolis to Winnipeg, the line from Winnipeg east, if under the control of the Grand Trunk, would be practically useless ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not wish to interrupt you.


Samuel Hughes: Then I will turn to the Minister of Finance. In the earlier part of this debate the Minister of Finance made this reference to the eastern section :
I will quote further from Sir Sandford Fleming's report of 1864. I may say that there are three routes described-the southern route near the state of Maine, the central route, which is the subject of the present discussion, and the route along the Baie des Chaleurs which was afterwards adopted for the Intercolonial Railway.
In referring to that part of the Finance Minister's speech I subsequently took the liberty of giving the elevations to show that the road had a series of grades, many of them reaching eighty feet to the mile, and that consequently the road) was an impossibility as a freight route. The member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) interrupted me, and stated that that was not the route at all, that the route they were going to pursue was down close to the main border. 1 [DOT]would like to ask the Minister of Finance Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
which is the route ? Is it the central route ? Now, no prompting by the Minister of Labour. I know the Minister of Labour is aspiring to be the leader of the party, I know that he lias emissaries out through the length and breadth of the country, trying to undermine the Minister of Finance as leader of the party. But the Minister of Finance is nearly as old as the Minister of Labour, and is as old a parliamentarian, and he does not want any prompting by the Minister of Labour. 1 am quite satisfied he will be able to paddle his own canoe in this matter if the Minister of Labour will be good enough to let him alone. Now, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance which is the route that is to be followed in that part of the country :	Is it the central route as
pointed out by the Minister of Finance in this speech ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am glad to tell my hon. friend that the eastern route is to be from the city of Moncton to the city of Quebec by the shortest practicable route, as may be defined and determined by engineers.


Samuel Hughes: The member for Bellechasse pointed out that the member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) showed clearly that Mr. Davey's line, that is the line through the central part of New Brunswick, was a diagonal line and had no relation whatever to the new project. Yet it is within the memory of the members of this House that this is the very line that the Prime Minister, in his opening speech of this debate, pointed out as the line they were going to follow. The Prime Minister pointed out that Mr. Davey's line had been surveyed, and that that was the line they were to follow, and that it was 209 miles from Moncton to Edmundston. Well, the member for Bellechasse says that the member for Westmoreland showed clearly that Mr. Davey's line was a diagonal one and had no relation to the new project. In my address I referred to some things that had been said by the Finance Minister, and I was interrupted by the member for Bellechasse who said :
The hon. gentleman is not at all following this route that this proposed scheme is going to follow.
And he went on to say in his own speech where the line was going to be :
The only explanations and locations to be considered of real value are the ones made by Mr. Tetu in 1889 and 1890, and one made by Mr. Hoare in 1891. That covers the entire territory.
In my remarks I pointed out that from Quebec these gentlemen were claiming that was the shortest line. I pointed out that it was absolutely impossible to get such a line of road as these gentlemen were claiming, and I gave some facts and figures. I find that the hon. member for Bellechasse-

I am sorry he is not in his -place-referring to myself, said :
I notice, however, reading the unrevised edition of ' Hansard ' quoting ills speech, that he has thought prudent to eliminate certain figures which he mentioned in the House in relation to distances from points of the Intercolonial Railway to imaginary points of this new government construction. He said that eight miles from Trois Pistoles was the starting point of the central route described by the hon. Minister of Finance, when in reality Trois Pistoles, by as straight a line as the crow flies, is forty-four miles to the nearest point of the projected railway.
I may point out to that hon. gentleman that the statement is absolutely untrue, not one word of truth in it, that neither directly nor indirectly was one (figure or one word which I uttered in the House elided from the report of my speech by any one with my knowledge or consent. I may point out further that when I was speaking of the central route, I was taking it as propounded by the Finance Minister, and that central route starts eight miles south of Trois Pistoles. The hon. member for Bellechasse undertook to point out that we were objecting to the route when any one knows who heard my remarks that I was very distinct in saying that X did not object to the construction of a road through that region because I had previously supported a I.iberal subsidy to a road through that country, but that my object was to -point out that the statement of those hon. gentlemen who claimed that they were going to effect a saving of 200 or 240 miles in distance was groundless. The hon. member for Bellechasse himself gives the whole matter away in his speech. He points out that:
Although the surveyed line may not have the advantages a-s a through route, by its position i-t is admirably adapted to colonization purposes and it would get a share of foreign business without a doubt.
Then he goes on to quote the report of Mr. Tetu in regard to the location of the line, as follows :
The line follows the valley of the Cabano to the head of Long lake, then along the St. Francis valley to the foot of Lake Pohenego-mook, passing at a point close to the United States boundary line. The line so far proved to be very good for grades and alignment, the country along this course rises so gradually that no grade need exceed fifty-three feet per mile.
That is the line to connect with the line from Three Rivers by way of Temiscouata lake to Edmundston, and I was surprised to find the hon. member for Bellechasse does not know the rivers and lakes of the region which he has the honour to represent in this House. . Then he goes on to point out the routes that the government instructed these engineers to follow. To quote further, the engineers' instructions were :
The main object of the exploration with which you have been entrusted by letter of the
31st of August last, should be to discover an easy line for a railway and to prepare a sketch of the level from St. Anselme to Lake Etche-min, and from Lake Etehemin to the frontier, passing through St. Justine. You should also explore from Lake Etehemin, taking a northeasterly direction to the frontier of New Brunswick.
I spoke of the grades. The hon. gentleman goes on to quote :
Grade.-Although, owing to the proximity of the mountains, I was sometimes obliged to go round. I always maintained an easy grade never exceeding one foot in a hundred, with the exception of one-half mile, where I was obliged to allow 18 inches to the hundred feet.
The hon, member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), the authority put up by the government in this matter, says that no roadi can be a through route that has grades of more thau four-tenths of a foot to the mile, while this has grades of one foot to the hundred. Then, between the 85th and 100th mile the report of the engineer goes on to say :
At this point, I am at the height of 1,450 feet above the level of the sea, in a region of mountains, but the line which I have followed is in a fertile valley, well wooded with maple, birch, &c., through which run numbers of small streams, tributaries to the lake.
I want to point out here, Mr. Chairman, that this line that he is following starts from Levis, which is in latitude 46*50 north, that it runs in a southerly direction to Lake Etehemin, where it reaches latitude 46:20. In other words, the air line distance is away over 30 miles. Thence, it turns northeasterly till it reaches the corner of Maine at latitude 47*25 north, or in other words, it runs south 30 miles and then twists north 70 miles. After leaving LSvis it zig-zags up and down before it reaches Edmundston until it covers a distance of 120 miles, running south, thence running away north, and thence running south again. I afn not taking into consideration the direct air line at all. Now, we will take the figures of the mileage. The hon. member for Bellechasse admits that there is one pass between the 85th and 100th mile, 1,450 feet high. Then he goes on :	*
The summit is reached at the head of Lake Etehemin, 3S1 miles from St. Anselme, at an elevation of 762 feet above the Quebec Central Railway at St. Anselme, or 962 feet above the Intercolonial Railway at St. Henri.
In the remarks which I had the honour to address to the House, I clearly pointed out that we could not get through any pass from Lake Etehemin to the River Ouelle at a less height than 1,306 feet. I think that the hon. gentleman goes me one better, because, according to him, this road will be away up in the air, about 100 feet above the point I gave. According to the figures of the hon. member for Bellechasse himself, I find that there are two points on* that route where the road will reach an altitude

of from 1,300 to 1,500 feet before it can get through.


Albert Edward Kemp: What is the grade to the mile ?


Samuel Hughes: There is no instrumental survey, despite the statements made by bon. gentlemen in the House. I have searched the records in Quebec and 1 have searched the records of the Railway Department here, and I find that there is no instrumental survey of this route either directly or indirectly, and when these lion, gentlemen stand up and pretend that there is an instrumental survey they are either deliberately or unintentionally misrepresenting the facts to this House and to the country. After starting at sea level at Quebec you must climb up over two grades nearly 1,500 feet.


Albert Edward Kemp: You can not get four-tenths per cent grades there ?


Samuel Hughes: No, 1 to 11 per cent grades would be the very lowest grades that could be got by taking longer mileages. As I pointed out a year or two ago, it is important that a road in this district should be constructed for colonization purposes, and I said that the Liberal-Conservative members from Ontario were prepared to give it a bonus of $6,400 per mile. I said that we were willing to assist our French Canadian fellow-countrymen in the development of this territory by a bonus to the extent of $6,400 per mile, so that the people could get their crops out, but when it comes to a road that will cost. _$50,000 per mile with grades so great that it will be impossible to haul trains over them we should pause and ask for more information. I would ask the hon. Minister of Justice if he has any data as to surveys of this route. I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister, who is always courteous, if he has any data in his. possession	in	relation to a survey.
Was there ever an instrumental survey made, and if so is it possible to obtain a report on the route from Levis passing through the Etchemin pass or through the St. Anselme pass to New Brunswick ? My hon. friend has no information. Then I want to know where are the mountains of information that were available ? I am afraid they were largely in the air. I regret - that the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan), is not in his place. I regret also that the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) is not in his place. However, before this debate is over, I trust that we shall have the opportunity of seeing these gentlemen here. We find the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., speaking of this route as if it were practically a level one. These gentlemen are seemingly like the Minister of Finance; they know nothing about the route. The Minister of Justice is simply interested in the part that concerns him, Mr. HUGHES (Vlotorfa).
about the city of Quebec ; he knows nothing of it after it crosses the river to Levis. The Minister of Customs is on strike ; and the fountain of information, the hon. member for North Norfolk, has been given the tip to keep his mouth shut. They have closed down on him, and he is not to be allowed to speak any mere in this debate. But we have the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) locating the line. This is about the seventieth location that has been given through New Brunswick :	He
says :
The line will start at ChaudiSre junction and go to Connors station, from Connors to Ed-muudston, from Edmundston to St. Leonard, from St. Leonard to Plaster Rook, from Plaster Rock to Boiestown, from Boiestown to Chip-man, and from Chipman to Barry's Mills, on the Intercolonial Railway.
Suppose we examine that. We will take the figures given by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot), who stated that from Cliaudiere Junction to Connor's station, by the St. Anselme route, the distance is 209* miles. You can easily add ten or fifteen" miles before you get any proper grade. But I will take his figures. Take 209 miles from Cliaudibre Junction to Edmundston ; then, from Edmundston to Moncton via Berry's Mills, 260 miles, by the only available route short of climbing up mountain sides. That makes the distance from Cliaudiere Junction to the city of Moncton 469 miles-less than twenty miles short of the present Intercolonial Railway. I am taking their own figures, given by the hull, member for Bellechasse for the province of Quebec and the hon. member for Annapolis for the province of New Brunswick.


Albert Edward Kemp: Surely they will not go on with it.


Samuel Hughes: I think they are proposing to withdraw the Bill. I have here the official report of the Geological Survey of that part of New Brunswick to be traversed by this road. This is the Fredericton and Andover quarter sheet map of New Brunswick for 1902 ; and by the route laid down by the hon. member for Annapolis, between the Little Salmon river and the Tobique river, the elevations are shown to be 320 feet; and on the St. John river, before the Little Salmon flows into it, the elevation is about 355 feet. Between these two points, in less than five miles, you have to climb an elevation of 355 feet over a mountain ridge more than 1,000 feet in height; then down into the valley again to 320 feet. Then at Plaster Rock the elevation is about 365 feet. That-is at the present ter-miuus of the Tobique valley branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Now, our friend Mr. Wade says they are going to run from there to Boiestown. I want to point out that in that district in less than ten miles from Plaster Rock the land rises from 365

feet to 1,200 feet, and the rise is not by any means gradual, but is over a series of ridges running at right angles to the line of the proposed railway. That means a rise in less than ten miles of very nearly 000 feet, or upwards of eighty feet on the average to the mile ; and our lion, friend from North Norfolk said that anything over twenty feet to the mile is impossible for a transcontinental or through road over which we can haul grain. All one has to do is to take the figures given by the hon. member for Bellechasse as to the mountain ridges in tlie province of Quebec, and you find that the figures I gave when I had the honour of addressing the House on this subject were far within the mark ; because unwittingly the hon. member for Bellechasse has proven conclusively that you have to. cross two mountain ridges, the lowest 1,306 feet and the highest nearly 500 feet higher than that, before you can get into the corner of New Brunswick. Now, I would like to ask the Postmaster General or the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Commerce or the Minister of Justice, is it their intention to continue this road from Levis on to Moncton ? What does the Minister of Public Works say about it ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The Premier answered that this afternoon.


Samuel Hughes: I have not heard it. Does the Minister of Public Works say that the Prime Minister still persists in running this road over these mountain ridges V


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: You had his answer to-day.


Samuel Hughes: I would be very much pleased if the minister would repeat it again.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: He said yes.


Albert Edward Kemp: He did not say that he was going to build it over the mountain ridges.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for Victoria, N.B., takes a different route still. He says :
It will avoid the height of land by following up the valleys of the streams which fall into the St. Lawrence. Passing by that range of mountains, it will cross one or two small tributaries which flow into the St. John, it will reach the south side of that range of mountains and follow down until it comes to that point near the boundary lake, where it joins the River St. Francis.
Then he goes on :
You go down that valley, you strike the valley of the St. John in Canadian territory, and go on to Edmundston and Grand Falls, and thence strike across the country to Moncton.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have pointed out in a rather imperfect manner this evening, what I pointed out in greater detail on a former occasion, that to cross the mountain 332
ridges where these hon. gentlemen claim they are going to run that road in New Brunswick, they will have to attain an elevation of from 1,500 feet to 1,700 feet, and then run down to 300 or 400 feet in the valley in less than ten miles. They will either have to do that or take the more circuitous route through the valley of the St. John.


An hon. MEMBER.: And save twenty miles.


Samuel Hughes: They will save less than twenty miles. They might save twenty miles if they could take a one and a half or one per cent grade, but if they take the grade of twenty feet in the mile spoken of by the member for North Norfolk their road from Levis to Moncton by the route proposed by these gentlemen, will be from five to fifteen miles longer than the Intercolonial Railway. There is no point on the Intercolonial Railway between Levis and Moncton higher than seven hundred feet, except at the Matapedia heights, but on this route proposed by these gentlemen opposite acc< rding to the engineers, there is an elevation of ],30G feet in one pass and 1,806 in another, which the member for Bellechasse states to be correct.


Albert Edward Kemp: And he was supporting tlie-project.


Samuel Hughes: Oh, certainly. I see the member for North Norfolk is reflecting, and perhaps he could now give us the mileage between Nepigon bay and where this road would pass along the north shore of Lake Superior.


John Charlton: I was reflecting on the point referred to by my hon. friend in re-i gard to the Wisconsin Central, and I would be glad if he could give me the mileage of that road and the southern and northern termini, and the principal points it passes through.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly. The *Wisconsin Central runs from the 'city of Chicago via Waukesha, which is eighteen miles west of Milwaukee, to Fond du Lac and to Neenali, with a braucli running on to Manitowoe.


An hon. MEMBER.: It doesn't go near Norfolk ?


Samuel Hughes: It doesn't go near Norfolk, although Norfolk might come to it. It has two branches to Lake Michigan. and Mr. Charles M. Hays being an astute railway man in selecting that road knew his business. Of these two branches one to Milwaukee and the other to Manitowoe, on the west shore of Lake Michigan. These are points that are already controlled by the Grand Trunk ; the harbour of Grand Haven and others. Then the Wisconsin Central runs westerly. I trust the hon



member (Mr. Charlton) will remember this -I beg his pardon he is only a commissioner.


George Taylor: The future minister.


Samuel Hughes: Oh, no, they dangle the commissionersbip in front of him when they want him to vote all right. You can always tell when the member for North Norfolk is going to fall back into line. This is the way it is done. Take up your newspaper some morning, and you will find a telegram dated Washington, stating, ' It is current rumour that the joint commission will meet at an early date next fall.' See the member for North Norfolk walk up the street that morning with an altogether different bearing. His hat stands a little straighter on his head and before a day or two rolls around the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) will be hobnobbing with the Prime Minister, and then he is put up to do some job the same as he was put up to do the other day.


John Charlton: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) commenced to answer my question about the Wisconsin Central and he branched off,


Samuel Hughes: I apologize for the digression. We get up as far as Abbotsford and then a branch line runs to Ashland on the southern shore of Luke Superior, and from that point the Wisconsin Central has running rights over the Northern Pacific Railway to the city of Duluth. They have that leased for 99 years to the city of Duluth. Then they come down to the main line which runs to the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul or a very few miles from them, and they have a 99 years' running lease into these two places.


John Charlton: I am very much obliged to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) for the very definite information he has given, and his detailed knowledge of the question leads me to wonder whether he may not have been employed by Mr. Charles 51. Hays in connection with that road, and In that capacity may have acquired this information which surprises me as to its definiteness.
5Ir. HUGHES (Victoria). I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) that Charles M. Hays has not done me the honour of employing me. I was not aware until now that Mr. Hays was employing members of parliament. I thank the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) for the suggestion. I regret to have to apply it, but it lends further colour to the ardour with which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) threw himself into the defence of this abominable scheme. However, the hon. gentleman (air. Charlton) must not measure other people's corn in his own bushel. I have never been purchased yet. Like the old darkey who was brought up for stealing water melons : He


Samuel Hughes: thanked the Lord in his infinite mercy that he never was caught before.
air. CHARLTON. I did not intimate that the hon. gentleman was purchased, but it would have been an honourable position to have been employed by a great corporation in negotiations of that kind.
air. HUGHES (Victoria). I am glad the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) considers it an honour. While it might be an honour for a member of parliament to be employed by air. Charles M. Hays to do certain work for him in connection with the Wisconsin Central, I do not believe that any man who is possessed of a proper sense of his duty as a public man would allow that fact to influence his voice or his vote in this chamber. I hope that my hon. friend (air. Charlton) has not been so influenced. The Wisconsin Central can be shortened by building two very short lines ; the Wisconsin Central can be made the shortest route between Chicago, aiinneapolis and St. Paul.
air. CHARLTON. How long would these two very short lines be ?
air. HUGHES (Victoria). They could build a line from Portage to Waukesha. They could build a little branch across the country there, and it would shorten the road 40 or 50 miles. And then by building from a place called Greenwood over to the line near aiinneapolis and St. Paul they could shorten it by 28 miles and then they would have the shortest route between Chicago and aiinneapolis and St, Paul. Then, when the line is constructed from St. Paul and aiinneapolis to Winnipeg the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will have the shortest and best transcontinental route, and the only transcontinental route excepting the Canadian Pacific Railway on the continent of North America.


John Charlton: That is by way of Winnipeg north to Lake Nepigon.


Samuel Hughes: The Grand Trunk Pacific never intends going north of Lake Nepigon, and they have so stated in the agreement. The Grand Trunk Pacific never intends utilizing one mile of that road. The member for North Norfolk himself admitted yesterday that the Grand Trunk Pacific has no intention of going to Port Arthur or Fort William.
air. LENNOX. He may have changed his mind since.
air. HUGHES (Victoria). Oh, he doesn't change his mind without reason. I am satisfied there was no cause given yesterday for the hon. gentleman to change bis mind. The Grand Trunk Pacific intends going to Duluth, but I would much rather they would go to a Canadian port. Port Simpson is hundreds of miles nearer the Asiatic ports than either Victoria, Vancouver, Portland or San Francisco, they

have tlie best route across the country and through the lowest passes and most fertile territory down to Winnipeg. To-day a traveller may leave Winnipeg and go via Minneapolis and' Chicago to Toronto. Another traveller leaves by the Canadian Pacific Imperial Limited and reaches the city of Toronto in forty-three minutes more time than the passenger by Chicago. Can any one point out why the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would haul a car of freight from -Winnipeg to Montreal, Quebec or Portland over the line which they are supposed to lease from this government, north of Lake Superior, when they have a much better line through a country where there is plenty of local freight, convenient to the coal fields, and on to the ports of Milwaukee, Chicago and the great cities of Detroit, Montreal, Quebec, Portland, Boston and New York ? I would like to ask the hon. member for North Norfolk how long it will be before he will have the line north of Lake Superior constructed ? Will it be ten or fifteen years ?


John Charlton: Does the hon. gentleman want my opinion ?


Samuel Hughes: I should be delighted to have it.


John Charlton: Would it be of any service to the hon. gentleman ?


Samuel Hughes: We would like to know what the opinion of the government is. Besides the hon. gentleman asked me a question about the Wisconsin Central, which I answered to the best of my ability.


John Charlton: This debate reminds me of some incidents in this House as far back as 1885, when we had the Franchise Bill under discussion, and the character of the ddilate was very much on all-fours with that of to-night. It had an obvious object, which was not the ostensible one. We were sitting night and day for a week or so, and one morning a friend of mine, who is now in the Senate, had been given the duty of occupying an hour's time. When he got to the point where he had taken up three-quarters of an hour, he ran over and Informed his leader-the House was then very thin, about four o'clock in the morning-that he could not go any further, and his leader directed him to repeat his speech backwards, which he did, and filled up the time quite well. If my hon. friend will only repeat his speech backward, he will occupy some considerable time.


Samuel Hughes: There was only one hon. member on that side who could muster up a grin at the hon. gentleman's feeble attempt at a joke, and that was one of the unfortunate representatives from a Cape Breton constituency. It is a little surprising that the government will not answer this question. If they think we are 332J
going to sit here and just register their decisions, they are very much mistaken. I answered the hon. member's question very courteously, and he will not answer mine.


John Charlton: I failed to catch the question.


Samuel Hughes: I asked how long the government proposed taking to construct that line. Will they take one or two parliaments or make it run into a third general election ?


John Charlton: I have to assure my hon. friend that I will make an investigation with regard to that matter and try and arrive at some conclusion. I would have to consider the matter some little time before venturing an opinion.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman reminds me of the story of a darkey preacher who had a good deal of influence in his community. He was called upon to use his influence along a certain line, and when asked what would be the price, he replied :	I do not want you to insult me,
but my son will call around and see you in the morning. I trust that the hon. gentleman has nothing of that kind up his sleeve. I would be much obliged to him if he would get up now and tell us frankly what he thinks, for he might change his mind between to-day and to-morrow. I have failed to elicit an answer from any of the ministers present, but I see that the Minister of Militia has just taken his seat, and there is no doubt that, with that urbanity always characteristic of that worthy officer, and that spirit of fairplay which ever characterizes him, he will give me the information I ask. Rut I have heard too that he was on strike, and that, when the Minister of Finance was to retire from the cabinet, it was a grave question whe-. ther the Minister of Militia would not follow him and the ex-Minister of Railways. I may explain to the hon. minister that I have been trying repeatedly to get from some member of the government an answer to an important question on which the country requires some light. I have just appealed to the factotum of the government, the gentleman they put forward to do the tooting and make statements they would not care to endorse officially as ministers of the Crown-I have just appealed to him to inform us how7 many years it would take to build this line from Moncton to Winnipeg, and have failed to elicit a reply. Perhaps the Minister of Militia, if lie is in the confidence of the party engineering this scheme-I do not know whether he is or not-will, with his usual geniality, give us some information on the subject. Rut he also is in ignorance. He does not know either and will not reply. The Minister of Justice, yesterday, when my good friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) put his foot in it by wishing devoutly

that tlie line might never reach the harbour of Fort William-the Minister of Justice, who was rather an astute politician, saw that that would not go down In the country and accordingly he tipped the wink to his befogged supporter and hinted to him that it was understood in the Senate that a clause was to be added to allow a branch from Nepigon harbour away up 140 miles to the north to tap that line. From Winnipeg to the northern end of Lake Nepigon is at least 550 miles. Then take the line say 150 miles south and that will be about 700 miles to run from Winnipeg to get to this harbour-run away north-east and then south-west in order to reach this Conmee harbour on Lake Superior. And it is not to be compared with the harbour of Port Arthur when you get there. Here in the Toronto ' Globe ' of Tuesday, August, 18th, 1903, is a telegram from Port Arthur referring to this very matter. It is headed ' The Lake Nepigon country has lots of good farming land ; is rich in timber.' The ' Globe ' does not add that all that timber has been handed over to a combine of which Mr. Conmee is the head and front.
Port Arthur, August 17.-A large party composed of Messrs. Jas. Conmee, M.P.P., J. T. Emerson, N. Simon, N. W. Rowell, K.C., D. p! Burk, A. F. Patterson, with Indians, a steam yacht, sailing boat and canoes, has just returned from a ten days' trip round Lake Nepigon. They went all around the shores of the lake, steamed up the Paskogan river for ten miles, and Mud river for four miles, visited the Grand Trunk Pacific surveyors' camp, and found that they were making splendid progress in a good main line. The expedition represents the Nepigon Railway Company, St. Joe Railway, Nepigon Pulp Company, and the Canadian Fish Club. Nets were set every day, and astonishing hauls of white fish, trout, &c., were made. It was found that there are immense areas of spruce, with large tracts of good farming land, well timbered, on the west and south sides of the lake. The Indian settlers had good potatoes and corn.^ It was estimated that there are nine hundred islands in the lake. The Nepigon river was found to be dotted with American sportsmen. Three fish were caught in one haul that aggregated one hundred pounds in weight.
And tlie bon. gentleman says there will be no freight over that north shore railway, when three fish aggregating one hundred pounds were hauled out of the waters set apart for the Conmee fishing party.


An hon. MEMBER.: Suckers.


Samuel Hughes: No the suckers are all down at Ottawa. There are no suckers up there.
I regret that the ministers have not seen fit to give us any information. Inasmuch as these hon. gentlemen require time to reflect over these matters. I shall allow them to consider the questions I have asked, and I trust that when I again have an opportunity of standing before the committee that the leader of the movement, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
will be good enough to have the answers for these very important questions all prepared.
Mr. OSLER, Mr. Chairman, the ministers and members on the government side are apparently treating this matter as if it was something quite trivial and light instead of being ns it is the most important matter that lias come before this parliament at least since I have been a member. They treat this matter as one on which we do not require any information at all, and tlie ministers and their supporters have admitted that they have no more information than they have given us, which is practically no information. The question of grades is important in connection with this scheme, ft a railway cannot he built from Winnipeg to the east with grades similar to those mentioned by the hon. member for North Norfolk, then the road is useless, and tlie government have no security from tlie Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific that they will operate the eastern section of tlie road if it should prove a non-paying .section. The Grand Trunk western section is the paying section, and it is being very liberally subsidized. In fact the western section is a proposition that any body of financial gentlemen would build under the same terms apart from its being very useful to the Grand Trunk. As I have said. I would like very much to see the Grand Trunk go into the North-west, connecting witli their existing system in the east. Assuming that they get into tlie west and build tlie western section within a few years over the prairie, as they can do, their outlet must then be to the south, where they will connect with their own lines, and for five or six years we will have them hauling over the Grand Trunk system through the United States, and the traffic to that extent will l>e diverted from our own ports. We will have in the west the same results as we have in the east, where the government bought from the Grand Trunk Railway for a large rental a connection and the use of their terminals in Montreal for the Intercolonial Railway, enabling the Grand Trunk [DOT]to make their entrance and line into Portland more efficient and so more to the detriment of our own ports. Now, I do not think that it is courteous of the members of the government and the leading members on the government side to sit as they are doing, evidently under instructions, not answering n word.
I happen to see the date box and I observe that it is labelled September. Now we all know that September is the oyster month. The oysters are slow-moving and they were always getting into trouble by trying to converse with each other and so attracting the other denizens of the ocean, they became an easy prey. A conclave of the oldest and wisest of the oysters decided that tlie only safety for the oysters was to re-

main dumb, and tlie oyster tradition from that day to this bas been to remain dumb. They escape many evils by not speaking but occasionally they are overtaken by a trawler and scooped up wholesale. Some such fate, I think, will overtake the oyster bed that has been transported to the other side of this House.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Mr. Chairman, there seems to have been a lack of sincere and businesslike argument during this debate on the government side of the House. It is true that this afternoon the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) avowed that he was talking against time. It seems to me that a great many others on the government side of the House have been talking against time instead of meeting this question fairly. The leader of the government announced that this railway was to be built for two purposes-to get free of the necessity of depending upon the bonding privilege, and to obtain a cheap outlet for the products of the west. But, instead of that, as the hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean) put it, the whole intent of the scheme seems to be a vote-catcher for political purposes in each of the provinces. Whether it may have any effect in some of the provinces I cannot say, but I do not think it will have such effect in the province of Prince Edward Island. We have in that province an independent paper, so-called, though for the past ten or twelve years it has been a strong supporter of the Liberal party. Speaking of this paper the other day, the hon. member for King's P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes), made some disparaging remarks concerning it, and intimated that it did not really understand the situation. Now, as regards this railway being a vote-catcher, let me read an extract from this paper to show what effect it will have in that province. This is what the Charlottetown ' Guardian ' says :
Following closely the discussion upon the railway agreemnt we have failed to find so far any argument or hint that Prince Edward Island can in any way be profited by it. The ' Patriot ' and the ' Pioneer,' the organs of the government in this province, content themselves with reciting the arguments addressed to the people of the west showing how they may be favourably affected. But surely we have a right to consider how our own people are to he affected. If we do not look out for our own interests we cannot expect the people of the west to look out for us. Eighteen hundred miles of railway are to be constructed by the government and the cost added to the public debt. The average cost of Canadian railways good and bad has been over $56,000 per mile. From what we know of the country between Moncton and Winnipeg it is vastly more difficult than that through which most Canadian railways have been built, and must in all human probability prove more costly. The cost may therefore be 100 to 110 millions for the government portion, exclusive of the guarantee given for the western portion. In proportion to population one fiftieth part of this debt must
be saddled upon Prince Edward Island, a matter of two millions of dollars or upwards. This means approximately $100 per family in Prince Edward Island. Are we to incur this new and heavy obligation without any compensating advantage, absolutely without any return? Surely this is a point worth considering.
But if we come to federal affairs we find the same incongruity prevailing. The time was when Canadian Liberalism stood for something. In the early days of confederation It stood for the abolition of dual representation, for the introduction of the ballot in elections, for the trial of election petitions by the judges for the reform of the Senate and various other reforms many of which were in time adopted. Later it stood for a low tariff as against protection, for the closest economy in administration and against any increase of the public debt. To-day the tariff has ceased to be an issue in our politics, the Liberal party haring adopted what was essentially the policy of their predecessors in office,.a protective tariff with attendant bounties and bonuses. As for the rest we have the Liberal party In power, spending many millions more year by year than the Conservatives ever expended and now proposing to add directly and indirectly a hundred millions of dollars to the obligations and liabilities of the country. In fact we have come to the time when the one great issue between our two political parties is whether we shall or shall not immdiately set about the construction of a second transcontinental railway.
The absurdity of facing such an issue oil Liberal or Conservative party grounds must be apparent to every intelligent citizen. Why should Liberals as such, or Conservatives, because they are Conservatives, be asked to support or condemn this proposal ? It is a vast proposition in railway construction, a huge enterprise to be entered upon or rejected, a proposition to he considered by practical business men on business principles, but what on earth has it to do with party, or party principles ? Ought not every man with his own good and that of his posterity at heart, seeking the true welfare of his country, to approach this question with an open and an independent mind ? What can party do for a man in aiding him to come to a right judgment on this momentous question ? In the face of such an issue are we to be told that we ought to support it because it is put forward by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, or that we ought to oppose it because Mr. Borden and his lieutenants tell us that we ought to do so ? What can partyism do for us in such a crisis but to confuse our minds, darken our undertaking and present the entire issue under a misleading light ?
Especially is this view of the case applicable to readers of the ' Guardian ' and to the people of Prince Edward Island. We are an isolated community and our reason is convinced that in many respects, no doubt because of our isolation and the smallness of our numbers, our just requirements and urgent needs have been overlooked. The Dominion has not kept its compact with us in regard to our winter service. it has been most unjust in the matter of our telegraph service, it has been regardless of our interests in the matter of through rates for freight, passengers and express goods. Suddenly we have this vast proposition of spending a hundred millions on a new transcontinental railway thrust upon us, and we are told the country cannot wait because time does not wait. Instant acceptance is demanded of us for this vast and most important enterprise

instant acceptance is demanded of us who have waited so long for the same rates and the same rights in regard to various public services as are enjoyed by the people of other provinces. Why should we become suddenly enchanted with the prospect of a second Intercolonial laid alongside of the first, a Grand Trunk Pacific alongside of the Canadian Pacific? Is it not a time for island people to preserve an open mind, an independent judgment and attitude ?
Now, this is a fair way of looking at the question. The people of Prince Edward. Island, you will find, are not very strongly in favour of the scheme which, while apparently catching on to the voters of every other province, entirely ignores the transportation facilities which we have been asking for since confederation. I think that, contrary to the ideas of the hon. member for King's, the people of Prince Edward Island, when the time comes, will not look with favour upon a proposition of this kind, entered into and pushed through which such haste. Now, it was pointed out this afternoon by the leader of the government that the proposition made on this side of the House of using the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Port Arthur would not fulfil the requirements of the west. But the proposition made by the leader of the opposition was not that this line should be the main outlet for the grain and other products of the west, but that, during the winter season when the lakes were frozen up, this would serve for an outlet and also for an inlet for the products of the east and west. The leader of the government pointed out that in railway transportation smaller packages do not stand in the same class as grain, and in order to have complete control of the system straight through, we should have this connecting link from North Bay to Porth Arthur; so, while the navigation of the lakes is closed up, the smaller packages of freight would stand more tariff and could be taken in and brought out in that manner. Now, the minister says that we will develop our lake traffic. But the lake route, as has been acknowledged from the other side of the House, is the cheapest way to bring out the products. Thefi; you have got to develop the resources at either end of the lake by erecting elevators, and by the development of canals at the eastern end of the lake. That is one method by which you can get a cheaper transportation. But you cannot force the products of the west, as I pointed out some time ago, out of their natural course, the course of easiest resistance; and you cannot force the products of the west to come out over an all rail route when there is a cheaper route that can and will be developed, but that cheaper route will only be retarded by expending millions of money on a project that the country does not need for years.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are confounding a colonization scheme to open up 1.300 miles of territory at one fell swoop with the Mr. LEFTTRGEY.
great transportation problem of getting the grain of the west out by the cheapest route in order to compete with the transportation facilities of our neighbours to the south of us. There was some talk in the House this afternoon about the various small canal systems having been given up here, but we find that the great water-ways of the United States have played an important part in the solution of the" transportation problem in that country. While they were operated during the early stages they were far in advance of the railways, but the railways have become so strong .in the United States that for years they have been retarding the development of water-ways because they feared them as competitors. I pointed out in the House a few days ago that in several states they have influenced the laws to such an extent that they have been able to secure the restriction that only three miles of canals can be constructed within one year and that a canal cannot pass through a borough or town. This has retarded the development of canals in the United States but we find that during the last few years the strength of the water-ways and canals has been growing- very rapidly in consequence of the people having taken hold of the question. The Americans are spending $300,000,000 on their inland water-ways and canals. The history of the Erie canal will prove the feasibility of water-ways and it proves that the canal system is the cheapest transporter of heavy products. When we find that we will have to compete not with the cheap railway transportation of the United States but with the still cheaper water and canal service we will find that we will not only have to reduce the grades of our roads but we will have to develop our owin water-ways to their fullest extent. When we find that they are spending $100,000,000 on the Erie canal and that the expenditure of that money will reduce the average rate of transportation from Chicago to New York from five cents to two and a half cents a bushel we will readily understand that we will have to get a move on and perfect our own water system, and not only that, but we will have to provide elevator facilities and large grain carrying steamers on the lakes as well as to build the canals by way of the French river and the Trent connecting with the Georgian bay. Now, I would like to make reference to the speech of the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) who, during the course of his remarks the other night, took occasion to point to some newspaper reports of the meetings that were held during the trip of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to the west in which reference is made to a speech delivered by myself as follows :
In regard to -transportation, he remarked that the strength of a chain was in its weakest link, and the chain of transportation should be complete. The government however was not giving enough time to the west, which had not

a quarter of the transDortation facilities necessary to its wants. Mr. Tarte, he claimed, was the avdwed champion of the Canadian Pacific Railway and yet he was a minister of the Crown.
The hon. minister remarks :
This was in October last. I may say. They speak more kindly now.
Then he proceeds to quote :
There could be little doubt that the glut or block of last year would this year be intensified ten times. The government was not big enough for the job. There ought to be three competing lines across the country, and the policy of the government ought to be to grant charters to all legitimate persons who asked for privileges. The Liberals, he said, had had more opportunities than any one during the last twenty years for doing those things, but the North-west had not benefited one iota in the matter of cheap transportation.
Again, in another place, the report says :
Transportation is the great question of this, country. The Conservative party built the Canadian Pacific Railway and had they remained in power would have built the shortest and be&t route to the sea.
And the hon. Minister	of Customs	remarked :
Right in favour of this road that we are giving them now.
I want to ask any hon. member of this	House where	there	is anything	[DOT]inthe	remarks that	are	put down	ascoming from me on that occasion that is at all inconsistent with the position	I have taken	with	regard to this
scheme. I defy any man of fair reason to get up and say that there is anything that is contradictory to the position I have taken in regabd to this scheme. In the first place, of course, I pointed out that the chain of transportation was not complete and that we required more facilities. That is what I claim to-day. I claim that we want the connecting link, that we want elevators established upon the lakes and that we want steamers carrying 250,000 or 300,000 bushels down to Parry Sound, to Midland and other harbours at the eastern end of the lakes. We want a connecting link with the Canada Atlantic Railway or some other line furnishing an outlet to the ports of Montreal and Quebec and if we can carry the products cheaply enough we want to take them through to maritime province ports over the Intercolonial Railway. These are the facilities that are required. I said that we had not enough rolling stock upon the railways that were in existence at that time. We had then the Canadian Pacific Railway. We have since that time the Canadian Northern Railway built down to Port Arthur and which will shortly be extended to Edmonton through a country that is being rapidly settled up. I have no objection to the Grand Trunk Railway going into that country and establishing a system. There is no opposition to it on this side of the House.
Let any legitimate charter be granted to afford railway facilities to the western country and these railway facilities will be provided just as soon as they are required and no sooner, because no railway company is going to ask for a charter to build a thousand miles of railway in a western country unless it sees that it is going to get returns for its money. That is the reason why the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway have taken charge of the western division for their own private gain while the government are undertaking to construct the unprofitable portion of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton. This road is going through a country in which the right hon.	leader of
the government says there are fertile lands, rich forests, and a country that will yield valuable returns. What kind of a policy is it that will open up 1,400 miles of country in one stretch for colonization purposes when the country is avowedly inferior to the lands already opened up in the west where we have millions and millions of acres ready for the settler to go in and take possession ? Then, in the province of New Brunswick there is no reason for opening up the territory that will be traversed by this railway. The Intercolonial Railway serves all the needs of New Brunswick at the present time and if there is need in the future for colonizing the section between Moncton and Quebec and the section between Quebec and Winnipeg iet it be done after surveys have been made, after we have the facts and figures before the House and the country, so that we will have a comprehensive idea of what we are doing. It was the Intention of the government at the opening of this session that a commission should be appointed to look into the transportation question, and as far advanced in the session as the end of May.we had an Order in Council brought down dealing very fully with the subject and clearly demonstrating the inability of this House or the government to deal with the question until proper information had been brought before the House. Now, we have all these fine promises thrown to the winds and the right hon. leader of the government gets up in the House this afternoon and points to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) as the key .to the situation. He says we are acting on his knowledge as he is a man possessing a great deal of knowledge on railway matters. Instead of calling in persons of experience and ability in railway and transportation questions, instead of waiting for the report of the gentlemen who compose the commission which they have appointed the government hand the matter over to the hon. member for North Norfolk and say that they are acting on his advice. To plunge into a scheme of this magnitude which will cost us from $120,000,000 to $150,000,000 is a rash act that will be condemned by the business men of I Canada.


William Humphrey Bennett: Although this discussion lias proceeded for a month, it is only yesterday and to-day that we have been able to get reasons why the government are building this line. At the outset they told us that we were to have an all-Canadian route, but that claim has gone by the board and every one admits now that between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Intercolonial Railway we can reach Atlantic ports without leaving Canadian soil. The argument about the bonding privilege is dead and buried, and I suppose we can let the dead bury the dead. Yesterday the member for North Norfolk made an important statement. He told us that this road would carry grain from Winnipeg to Quebec for about 5i cents a bushel. Had not the Prime Minister endorsed that statement, little attention would be paid to what the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) said, but now' that it has been adopted by the Prime Minister it becomes interesting. It w'ould appear, however, that the prognostication of the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) is alleged to be based on a statement of Mr. J. G. Scott, of the Great Northern, and if Mr. Scott is not correct, then the member for North Norfolk is wrong and the government is wrong also. On the face of it, it is absurd for any sane man to state that grain can be carried allrail from Winnipeg to Quebec for fire cents a bushel. It is opposed to all the experience of transporta lion on the American continent for the past fifty years. The Buffalo Merchants' Exchange, report that from New York to Buffalo, 440 miles, grain is carried in summer at five cents a bushel and in winter at ten cents a bushel. That is what it costs to haul grain on a railway which has no equal in America, and whose grades and equipment are in every respect as perfect as lavish expenditure can make them. And yet the member for North Norfolk-and nobody would pay any attention to his statement only the Prime Minister endorsed it- says that the day is coming w'hen this mythical railway will carry grain 1,400 miles for 54 cents a bushel. But let us see how Mr. Scott's opinion tallies with his actual experience. Mr. Scott is connected w'ith the Great Northern, w'hicli runs from Hawkesbury to Quebec, and over that railway they attempted to carry grain from Parry Sound to Quebec, and it resulted in a failure. The Minister of Justice w'ill bear me out in that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Don't call on me to bear you out in anything tonight.


William Humphrey Bennett: I congratulate the Minister of Justice that he is not going to have i any fairy tale placed in his mouth even by Mr. Scott. Mr. Booth carried grain at the low'est possible rate from Depot Harbour to Hawkesbury, on the Canada Atlantic Railway, and he transferred it to Mr. Scott's road to be taken to large ocean ships at Mr. LEFURGEY.
Quebec, but Mr. Scott's road was unable to continue that trade because the rail haul wras too long. And this is the same gentleman who is alleged to have said that you can carry grain on a railway for 1,400 miles at Si cents a bushel. Well, I have no doubt that when Mr. Scott learns w'liat the member for North Norfolk has attributed to him lie w'ill be very apt to deny the statement. Let us compare the freight rates by water and by rail. From Chicago to Buffalo the rate is one cent per bushel, and from Buffalo to New' York, five cents a bushel. I do not know whether that includes elevator charges or not. but at all events it shows that they have been able to carry grain from Chicago to New York for a total of six cents a bushel. In view of that, I defy the government supporter to produce the statement of any responsible railway man in America that you can carry grain all-rail for 5J cents a bushel. Just to show' the advantage and the cheapness of the water route, let me point out that they carry grain by rail to TbJedo, and although Toledo is only 250 miles froim Buffalo, they take to the water transportation at Toledo for that 250 miles rather than continue to haul grain in the same cars that brought it from the west. There are millions, I might say billions of dollars, invested in shipping on the great lakes. See the large steamers passing Sault Ste. Marie, carrying up to 300,000 bushels of grain, and each vessel costing $300,000 or $400,000. Remember the fact that they are constructing in the United States larger vessels for the grain trade than have ever been constructed before. These vessel builders are business men and experienced in the trade, and are we to believe that they are fools enough to continue building these immense ships for the lake trade if Mr. J. Gf. Scott is right, that you can carry 1,400 miles by rail for 54 cents a bushel. I do not believe Mr. Scott ever imade this statement, and until I see it in black and w'hite over his own hand, I w'ill be charitable enough to believe that the member for North Norfolk misunderstood him. The statement has been made in this House, and it cannot be contradicted, that the Wolvin Dine has this year been carrying grain for three cents a bushel from Port Arthur and Fort William to the eity of Quebec. That seems a ridiculously low rate, but there are reasons why it can be done.
I propose to point out some of those reasons for the benefit of the House. In the first place, these boats go through to Quebec with a cargo of grain at three cents per bushel. On their return, they load with pulp wood at different points 'on the St. Lawrence, which they take to the cities and towns on the shores of Lake Erie. After they discharge their cargoes of pulp wood, they load with coal for Duluth, Port Arthur and Fort William. So that these boats have three freights-the grain freight to Quebec, and the pulp wood and coal on their

way back. Assuming that this railway is ever built-and most people believe it never will be-and assuming it will carry grain to Quebec and Moncton, what return freight Will it get. Any hon. gentleman who has ever travelled over the Canadian Pacific Railway knows that after leaving Sudbury and passing along to the head of Lake Superior, you see train after train of empty box cars going from the east to the west. That is due to the fact-and I am referring particularly to the summer months-that the Canadian Pacific Railway bring their return freight to the town of Owen Sound, where they load it on their boats and then transfer it to their trains at Fort William. This railway will be in the same position as the Canadian Pacific Railway in going from east to west. It will haul nothing back but empty box cars. The trade has developed to an abnormal extent at Buffalo, according to the reports, which gives the figures from year to year, and which are much more reliable than statements given by an hon. gentleman in this House and taken from some gentleman outside of the House. There is only 900 miles of distance between Chicago and New York city, and these reports show that no grain is carried by rail between those points except what may be carried in the winter months. In the summer the whole trade goes by way of Chicago to Buffalo in vessels. From Chicago to Buffalo is about 900 miles and from Buffalo to New York some 400 miles. The grain is carried in vessels from Chicago to Buffalo where it is transferred into elevators and from the elevators into the cars and taken out to New York, and the whole cost so carried is cheaper than it costs to haul it 900 miles by train. That statement was made by the hon. member for St. Mary's division'(Hon. Mr. Tarte), and no hon. gentleman can produce any report to the contrary. The grain is carried 900 miles in vessels, the elevator charges are paid, and it is then carried 400 miles by train, cheaper than it could be carried from Chicago to Buffalo by rail, and the port of Buffalo handles 325.000.000 bushels of grain in a single season. I think, therefore, that the government should have more substantial reasons to place before the public than the fact that a gentleman named Scott, in the city of Quebec, has had attributed to him a statement, which I am bound to say, he will not shoulder, that grain can be carried 1,400 miles over this proposed system of railway at five and a half cents per bushel. The hon. member for North Norfolk stops at Quebec, he will not hazard a conjecture as to Moncton. I notice that the other day when he made his speech in the town of Simcoe, he was very particular to state that the grain carrying trade apparent-lv was to centre at Quebec. He said nothing about Moncton, and in his argument in the House the other day he left Moncton out altogether. Whether the government
intend to build this railway or not, time only will show, but the Minister of Finance yesterday expressed the opinion that it was going to" be an excellent vote-catcher.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is what the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) said.


William Humphrey Bennett: And the Minister of Finance assented to it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I did not like to contradict my hon. friend.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman is the pink of courtesy. He thinks this will be an excellent vote-catcher. If so, why not dissolve the House and let the country have a referendum upon it. These hon. gentlemen have had a referendum already, we went according to their wish, but if they have one now, it would be conducted differently from the plebiscite on the temperance question. In that case we all know that by ways that were dark they stifled the voice of the electorate in the province of Quebec. Let them go to the people at once before passing the Bill. Let them give the people a chance to mark tlieir approval or disapproval before it becomes law. In what position does the government stand to-day ? They have been forced to abandon their sentimental plea regarding an all-Canadian route. That lias passed and gone never to be recalled. Their bonding privilege bogey is relegated to the closet, and nothing more is heard about it. But yesterday the hon. member for North Norfolk brought out a statement from a Mr. Scott that grain would be carried down this system to Quebec at five and a half cents per bushel.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who is Mr. Scott ?


William Humphrey Bennett: He is general manager of a railway which runs from Quebec to Hawlcesbury, called the Great Northern. But that after all we have simply on the au-tlioritv of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and as far as the province of Ontario is concerned, his opinon would not have great weight there. The province of Ontario has just as high an opinion of the hon. gentleman as the members of the cabinet themselves have. The hon. gentleman has been in this House since , 1S72. He has been knocking at the door of . the cabinet for the last seven years and i been put off with promises. Little eornmis-* sions have been doled out to him. He has
-	been fed with the crumbs that fall from the i table, and that is all he gets. Yesterday ; afternoon he made the statement that Mr. ; Scott had declared that grain could be car) ried to Quebec over this line at five and a
-	half cents a bushel. Had it not been for the
-	fact that the Prime Minister this afternoon l gave his approval to that statement. no l one would have paid any attention to it. t But this afternoon the First Minister took

tlie responsibility of that statement and gave it as a reason why the government are going to construct this line and asking their supporters to put this measure through. He said it lias been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the government that grain can be carried down this line at this rate, and we must presume that had it not been so demonstrated, the government would forgo this Bill altogether and allow it to drop. I make this prediction that no member of this government will be able to produce from Mr. Scott any statement that grain can be carried at this rate from Winnipeg to Quebec. No man who has any experience in railway matters would stake his reputation on such a statement. I notice that the hon. member for South Brant took, the flooi; this afternoon. What was the position he took in the Railway Committee when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway charter was before it ? In a speech made in that committee which appeared in the ' Globe,' he objected to the tacking on to the Grand Trunk Faciflc Railway charter the extension to Moncton, and the reason he gave was that it would entail additional charge on the farmers of the North-west of two cents a bushel on the grain carried to Moncton. He wanted to protect both the farmers and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
But it is altogether different when the party whip cracks. Then the hon. gentleman is willing to say that this country shall bear the brunt and pay the expense of the construction of this line. He does uot care now whether it costs the country millions and millions or whether the increased cost will result in the western farmer having to pay higher freight rates. A great many clauses in this contract will, I presume, be discussed as they are reached, but as this clause refers to the contract, it may not be amiss to refer to some of the terms embodied in that contract. It is well known that when this Grand Trunk Pacific charter was first applied for, the names of Senator Oox and Senator Gibson were given in the ' Gazette ' as directors of the road. The fact that both of these names have been dropped from the Bill is significant and lends force to the statemtnt that these gentlemen expect to be contracting parties with the government for the construction of the road. There is a clause in the Bill that says no Senator or member of this House shall be a contractor on the road, but under the Independence of Parliament Act that would be impossible now-although violations of the Independence of Parliament Act are to-day winked at and blinked at in this House in a most disgraceful way, in a way that was never known before, if either of these gentlemen become members of a construction company then they would be in no way violating the terms'of this contract.
But there is another clause in this Bill requiring the close scrutiny of parliament, a Mr. BENNETT.
clause which may afterwards be productive of a great amount of wrong-doing ; that is the clause which says the government are going to appoint three commissioners to whom shall be entrusted the awarding of contracts. But this clause will be far-cial as these commissioners will have no voice in the letting of contracts that exceed $10,000. Does any one assume that $10,000 contracts will be let on a million dollar road ? Yet any contracts over $10,000 are only to be let subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. These contracts will be subject to party machinations behind the cabinet doors. Every contract over $10,000 will be let as the members of the cabinet desire, and the parliament of this country may never know who tendered on the section ; all they will be told will be that Mr. Brown or Mr. Smith got the contract. If that is the ease, why should we not eliminate some of the farcical features of this Bill ? First of all, let us dispense with the commissioners, let us not have the farce that there are commissioners when we know that these unfortunate men will be utterly powerless, and can do nothing. Let the government stand out boldly and take the bold front of letting these contracts and let it be understood that this is to be what the ex-Minister of Railways' (Hon. Mr. Blair) has called a political railway all through, even down to the letting of contracts. Let us dispense with the farce of the commission, and with other farcical features of the Bill such as ithe clause saying that no Senator or member of the House can be a contractor on this road. Then too if that clause dealing with the admission of goods into the country free of duty means nothing let that be eliminated. Let us have as little as possible in it so that the people will understand just what the contract is. Any gentleman who accepts the position of commissioner Under this contract will think very little of himself when he is told that he is not to have the power of letting any contract over $10,000.
It is evident that the government no longer pin their faith to the idea of carrying the country on the sentiment of this being an all-Canadian road ; they no longer appeal to the country to back them up on this proposition on the ground that it will do away with the chance of the abrogation of the bonding privilege by the United States. To-day the Premier has assured the people of Canada, following the lead of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that when this railway is constructed and finished it will carry grain at 5 cents a bushel from Winnipeg to Quebec.
I can only say that if any member of the cabinet or of the House comes into East Simeoe this fall, if the campaign should then be held, I shall be pleased to meet him on the platform, and I think I shall be able to prove to the intelligent people of that section that this is an absurd statement,

and one that cannot be borne out. A good deal lias been said about the gradients on this road. The government have said to the House :	Look at the map ; there is a
space of land between Hudson bay and Lake Superior and the railway is going to run somewhere there. That is not very authentic, and the government have been unfortunate in not securing some responsible engineer who would hazard his opinion that that would be a good country for a line of railway. The Premier has stated to-day that a government pamphlet is to be issped giving a description of the country north of Lake Superior. When such a statement is published it will be found to be a garbled statement, a reproduction of certain statements that are made in certain reports. If the government propose to publish that as an official document they should submit it, before printing, to parliament. If on the other hand, it is to be a campaign document, I presume people will attach to it the same amount of credence that they will to statements referred to in the debate to-day.
I need not refer to some of those statements which are so totally devoid of truth that they need only to be repeated to show their absurdity. The Postmaster General, for-instance, stated that the leader of the opposition had advocated the purchase of a railway extending for a number of miles in the United States, while as a matter of fact it is notorious to every man who consults the map that that railway, instead of being in the United States, is in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The question of the route has secured from the government very little information, and I suppose the public will be forced to grope in the dark. To-day we have the government on the question of rates, and they must go to the country with this statement endorsed by the Premier, that they guarantee that this railroad is going to carry grain from Winnipeg for five and a half cents a bushel. I say the hon. gentleman who made that statement in this House, before the close of this debate, ought to secure from the gentleman whom he gave as his authority, Mr. J. G. Scott, of the Great Northern Railway, a statement over his signature that in his opinion grain can be carried on any railway-I care not how favourable it may be. how easy the grades may be. or how perfect its equipment may be-from Winnipeg to Quebec for five cents and a half a bushel. I say the government, after having that statement endorsed by the Premier, should at least secure from Mr. Scott a guarantee that he made it and will stand by it, and until that statement is made by Mr. Scott, I will not believe that he ever gave authority to the hon. member for North Norfolk to make it.
the members of the government if there have been any maps or records placed on the Table with respect to this prop jsed legis-lati n ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Prime Minister placed a large number of reports and documents on the table one day, perhaps the hon. gentleman was not present at the time.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman say what they are 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I could not. They were placed on the Table publicly.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are they reports of engineers ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They were miscellaneous reports.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like some mem-her of the government to state what the reports are, I have not been able to place my hand on them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then somebody must have spirited them away.


Andrew B. Ingram: The only report I noticed on the Table was a report of some exploration party in the province of Quebec, running in an opposite direction to that this line is intended to take. Apart from that,
I noticed no official documents on the Table.
I may say that when the Intercolonial extension took place, the Minister of Railways and Canals did place on the Table official documents, and the House was enabled to discuss the matter intelligently. In looking over the records of the extension of the Intercolonial which took place in 1897, I notice that a prominent member of the Liberal party at that time, and a close friend of the right hon. leader of this government -I refer to Mr. Lavergne. who has been appointed a judge since-during that discussion made this statement:
I believe that, the route from Montreal to Halifax by the Intercolonial Railway is just as advantageous and can compete very fairly with the Grand Trunk Railway via Portland. .	. .
I repeat that a difference of seventy-six miles iu a route of 1,200 or 1,400 miles is not worth mentioning, and I go further and say that even with that difference in the route, if you make the comparison at St. John's, another terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway, a difference of about 240 miles on a route of 1,200 or 1,400 miles does not prevent the Intercolonial from making a profitable business, if they can secure the traffic.
This gentleman, I notice, in his remarks, professes to know and understand the facilities that the Intercolonial Railway have had. Now, couple that with the statement made by the Minister of Railways :
My objections were of this character. I ob____ ,	,	. i jected to the government constructing another
Ml*. INGRAM. Not hfiving disciissou tliis | j.0a.d from Levis to Moncton. I objected to it Bill but ouee before, I would like to ask i because it paralleled the Intercolonial Rail-

way in my opioion, without a doubt. You cannot build a line between the same points without practically paralleling the Intercolonial.
Further on he says :
I am not in favour of impetuously rushing into the construction of a transcontinental line from Quebec, through an unknown country to Winnipeg and the west, until we have the fullest information about it. The project is one of very great magnitude, and should be dealt with only after the maturest deliberation.
Now, as this is a technical question, I want to ask the Minister of Finance if the information that was laid on this Table has been received by the government since the resignation of the ex-MInister of Railways.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can hardly tell at what particular moment these reports came into the possession of the Prime Minister. Certainly they are not new. Most of them have been accessible to everybody who wished to look into them.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, if that be true, we have the most competent man of the government rising up in his place in this House and stating that the information in the possession of the goiemment during the time he was Minister of Railways, was not sufficient to justify him in supporting this indefensible scheme proposed by the government. Now, I want the Minister of Finance to tell me this : There are in my constituency a number of practical railway men such as are connected with the Michigan Central, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Lake Erie and Detroit, the Pere Marquette and the Grand Trunk Railway, and I am going to tell them that when we asked for information in this House involving a scheme that was to cost millions of dollars, the government were not in a position to give the information that any practical railway man would naturally ask for. I am bound to make that statement to these railway men. Then 1 would like to know how the Minister of Finance can expect that this is going to be a great vote-catcher if practical railway men are convinced that the government are pressing the measure through without knowing scarcely anything about it. This question will come up in our various constituencies. The Minister of Finance must remember that tiic farmers are fully alive to the transportation question. They know what it means to them, and in my section of the country particularly they know wbat it means to them. Now, these men will view it from this standpoint : They will say. here is a line of railway passing through the province of Ontario four or five hundred miles away from the city of Toronto, from the city of London, from the eitv of Hamilton, the important centres of the province. They will ask this question :	What particular
benefit are we going to derive from this enormous expenditure ? Would they lie justified in allowing themselves to he taxed


Andrew B. Ingram: 
James Clancy: Mr. Chairman, I desire to call your attention to what seems to me a very strange feature of the procedure iu regard to the measure now before the committee. We have debated the general principles of this Bill for some time. That was upon the resolution. We have now entered upon the discussion of the Bill itself. The Bill and the contract, as you are aware, Sir, involves many clauses. It involves some very material and important considerations. It involves the expenditure of, at the most moderate calculation, more than $100,000,000. It involves-I hope the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) will not leave the chamber, because I am going to make a request of him in a moment.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will come right back. I would not miss it for a good deal.


James Clancy: It is rather unprofitable to have to proceed when we have no minister of the Crown in his place, not even a prospective minister as far as I can see. Now, since the hon. Minister of Justice is

in his place, I shall proceed. I was about to say, Mr. Chairman, that we are now entering upon the discussion of the details of this Bill. We are asked to give our sanction to this clause :
2. The said agreement bearing date the 29th flay ot July, 1903, a copy of which forms the schedule to this Act, is hereby ratified and confirmed and declared to be legally binding upon His Majesty and the said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and His Majesty and the said company are hereby authorized and empowered to do whatever is necessary in order to give full effect to the said agreement.
That embodies everything that biuds the people of Canada to this contract. We have heard gentlemen opposite complain that no progress is being made and we discover what must shock the nation, that in the face of the importance of the question before us the government sit mum and will not give one particle of information. It is the most extraordinary thing that ever took place in this House. It is a high crime that the government should refuse to give information to the representatives of the taxpayers of this country. I say here to the people of Canada, that if no progress has been made, then the government themselves are to blame. We have a right to get information from ministers of the Crown on a measure of such magnitude. It is no excuse for them to say that they have given us all the information they possess, for they have given us no information that justifies them in proceeding with this scheme.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If we are dealing with this contract improvidently and without information, the people will be able to appreciate it. If we have not the information, as you say, how are you going to get it ?


James Clancy: Then you should not submit such a measure for our consideration until you have the necessary information.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The people will decide.


James Clancy: The people will decide after you have bound them to this expenditure. Give them a chance to decide before you commit them to this expenditure. We would be justified in sitting here till doomsday to defend the rights of the people of this country.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Hear, hear.


James Clancy: I do not say that for the purpose of delaying this committee one minute, but I say no member of the opposition should consider his time and convenience, until we get information from the government. I never knew a greater outrage to be perpetrated upon the rights of the people than this. The Minister of Justice says that the people will decide as to the responsibility of the government, but even if they Mr. CLANCY.
seized on his body it would be as worthless as mine to satisfy the debt. If we are unable to proceed with this Bill because the Prime Minister has commanded his followers to sit mum, mum, is it our fault that we insist on our rights ?


Edward Cochrane: We are going to get a pamphlet.	.


James Clancy: And I can say in advance that that pamphlet will be just as worthless as the information we already have. Even if this measure had any merit in it, the government would not be justified in muzzling the House to prevent the people getting information. The time is coming when we will appeal to a larger parliament than this, and when that time comes the supporters of the ministry will have to disclose whether by persuasion or threats they were forced into supporting this measure. They will have to tell why it was that the Prime Minister could force them into endorsing such an extraordinary scheme which was introduced by the Prime Minister, devoid as it is of business principles, in a manner unbecoming a Prime Minister of Canada. It was an appeal to sections and to local prejudices, and neither the Prime Minister nor the Finance Minister, nor any other minister ever thought for a moment as to whether or not it would be in the interests of Canada. The Minister of Finance is frank when it is advantageous for him to be so, and he was frank enough to tell us that distances are nothing in the scheme, and that what we must look to is local considerations.


Edward Cochrane: A vote-catcher.


James Clancy: It was intended to be such, but they overshot the mark, and it is not a vote-catcher for them. No greater crime could be committed on the public than for the ministers of the Crown to sit in their places and to refuse to answer a single question about such a measure as this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know whether or not my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) expects to be taken seriously.


James Clancy: I am most serious about this matter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, if lie is to be taken seriously, I may say that I have not heard during the whole evening a single question asked of the government, which has not been threshed out from beginning to end during the last three weeks. If we decline to repeat our speeches, I do not think we should be found fault with. My hon. friend is mistaken when he says that we are complaining that we are not making progress. We are not complaining; we are sitting here with all respect and politeness. If it suits hon. gentlemen opposite to adopt these methods, that is their

fight. They are making their speeches all over again, but we are finding no fault, and we are sitting here listening very respectfully.


James Clancy: The hon. Finance Minister did not think I was sincere


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that.


James Clancy: Well, I will give him the credit of being sincere, and I will ask him : Does he propose to make a deposit with some financial institution on the report of his actuaries, for the purpose of meeting the obligations of Canada ? Is that the intention of the government ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Whether It is or not, would not affect the merits of the argument. I cannot say whether we will or not, but I do not think we will. The hon. gentleman was good enough to give me credit for frankness, and I will meet him in a spirit of frankness. That statement was based upon figures and calculations, and no attempt has been made to upset the calculations in any shape or form. Perhaps I should make one qualification to that. The hon. member for Pictou, whom I do not happen to see in his place, said we were basing that calculation upon the assumption that money could be invested at three per cent, and he undertook to say that our sinking fund is only earning two per cent. In that he was entirely mistaken.
Mr. CLANCY'. The hon. gentleman gave the country to understand that he would do that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken.


James Clancy: I am glad to be able to elicit from the hon. minister that he was only playing to the gallery and leading people to believe that he was going to do something that he had no intention of doing. How is the hon. minister going to dispose of the surplus ? What became of the surplus which he claims to have had since he came into office ? It would not be proper to touch a matter of that kind in this debate, were it not for the fact that the hon. minister himself introduced the question of real or imaginary surpluses. I ask him now what he has done with the surpluses he claims to have had in the past ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think that what has been done with the surpluses has anything to do with the point faised regarding the calculation by the actuary. The hon. gentleman said that I assured the House that this was the manner in which the government would deal with the transaction. I said nothing of the sort, and the hon.- gentleman has not been able to quote me as having said anything of the sort. I said that if the surplus
of the present year were applied in that way, as an ordinary financial operation, it would give the result shown by the calculation of the actuary. As to what we did with the other surpluses, I am afraid I must ask my hon. friend to turn to the public accounts. They are not in issue just now.


James Clancy: The hon. minister refuses to answer my question. Is there any secrecy about the matter ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, but I am not under cross-examination.


James Clancy: If there be no secrecy, will the hon. gentleman unbosom himself to the electors, and tell them what became of the surpluses in the past? He has attempted to deceive the people by declaring that he had surpluses, but refuses to say what has become of them. He can take his choice either horn of the dilemma. Let him tell the people what has become of the surpluses or say that they did not exist. One of the reasons given by the hon. minister why the proposition before the House is a good one is that he had a surplus of some six or seven million dollars last year, will the hon. gentleman tell us what became of that V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If I thought it had anything to do with the subject under discussion, I would like to oblige my hon. friend ; b,ut as I object to having any herrings drawn across the trail, I must refer him to the public accounts.


James Clancy: What is the hon. gentleman's objection to tell me what became of the surplus last year ? He associated that surplus with this scheme.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 associated the surplus of the current year with it.


James Clancy: There is a grave doubt in the minds of some men, who have paid some attention to the public accounts-not merely a grave doubt, but a certainty-that no surplus did exist. No do,ubt the question I have put to the hon. gentleman is a delicate one, but the electorate have the right to a reply. I challenge the hon. gentleman to state what became of the surplus, even of last year. If he refuses, he stands branded with having made a statement to this country which is not true. That appears pretty strong language, but the circumstances warrant it. We have had a good deal of loud talk of surpluses and about what the Liberal party have done


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is out of order. We are not discussing the question of surpluses. Of course, he can speak of the particular surplus to which the hon. the Finance Minister referred, but he can not go back to previous surpluses and discuss them.


James Clancy: I am sure the Minister of Finance must be grateful, to you, Mr. Chair-

man, for your timely intervention. I know of no period when ihe needed it more. I am going to assume that you are in the exercise of your right and duty in calling me to order, and that the rules of the House preclude me from insisting on being given information which the people ought to have. But I ask now the Finance Minister what he intends to do with his prospective surplus '!


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is under consideration.


James Clancy: I suppose that the don. gentleman will do the same as he did with his former surpluses. Would he be good enough to tell the committee what he meant when he set an actuary at work to make the calculations 'which he gave this House, if he had no intention of carrying it into effect ? AVhat did he mean when he made that arrangement ? Was it merely to throw dust into the eyes of the people, or was the transaction capable of being carried out 1 Perhaps he will give us that information With regard to his prospective surplus ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid that I will have to refer my hoa friend to the ' Hansard.' I meant just what I said, and it is very plain.


James Clancy: I have always been under the belief that it is the business of the ministers of the Crown to answer pertinent questions. The answer that the hon. minister has 'given is hardly worthy of him. If I were to regale the hon gentleman with reading his speech from 1 Hansard,' though it might be interesting, I would have no further information. I am asking the question of a live man, and not of ' Hansard.' I cannot interrogate ' Hansard.' I could probably interrogate ' Hansard ' with as much success as I have been able to interrogate the hon. ministers. I ask the hon. minister again who stands in the way 1 But my heart fails me to ask him another question, I have so deplorably failed with those I have asked. The hon. gentleman will tell me to read 'Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not the whole of it.


James Clancy: Not the whole of it. I am glad he does not impose so great a task on me. But he could relieve me if he were disposed to do so from the necessity of reading any of it. It would be a good thing if the electors could sit in the gallery of this House and witness the spectacle we are pained to witness. They would sdbn discover the difference between real ministers and ministers as we And them here, and that if the ministerial glamour was pulled off the minister he is very ordinary clay after all. We would find that people would soon lose confidence in such a thing as parliamentary government. This is no laughing matter, and I want to ask the minister a question now for the last time.


James Clancy: 


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Good.


James Clancy: I have his benediction 1 good.' I ask again-perhaps I might address myself with more success to the Postmaster General now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. Give him a show now.


James Clancy: I ask the Minister of
Labour what the toiling masses of this country would think of this. I would ask the S hon. gentleman as the representative of the labouring class, as the minister of the toiler who has got a little family and is compelled to contribute to the revenue of this country what he would think of this.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I would ask the hon. gentleman to give notice of his question.	*


James Clancy: I am asking on behalf of the labouring classes who cannot give notice of their questions. And if I have to give notice of this question is it not high time that the House should adjourn until I can give the usual twro days notice. This is a continuance of those wrongs to which these gentlemen seem to be so callous and, as my friend from Macdonald suggests, so proud of. Let me ask the Minister of Labour if it is proposed to pay out any portion of this deposit of $5,000,000 to the Grand Trunk Railway to be paid on progress estimates to contractors.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The contract speaks for itself.


James Clancy: Well, but the contract is not a minister.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I ask the hon. gentleman to read the contract; we will reach that part of the contract later.


James Clancy: But then we will have ratified the contract. The second clause of the Bill reads :
The agreement bearing date the 29th day of July, 1903, a copy of which forms the schedule of this Act, is hereby ratified and confirmed and declared to be legally binding upon His Majesty.
After we have assented to that the thing is done and it will be too late to ask questions.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Nothing I can say would alter the meaning of the contract.


James Clancy: Would the hon. gentleman tell me what the meaning of the contract is ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The contract speaks for itself.


James Clancy: I think the minister is here to speak for the people and to answer for the people, but he seems to think his duty is to sit in silence and to refuse to give information with regard to this contract.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: The attitude of the ministers to-night in refusing to answer these questions is in perfect accord with their attitude on this matter throughout. This question, this large question of constructing a transcontinental railway has been dangled before parliament during the whole of this summer. We waited patiently month after month, week after week, day after day, for the government to bring down this measure and we were put oft till the 30th of July, when the business of this parliament ought to have been over. Since that time the government have been withholding as much as possible any information which they should have been able to give, on a measure involving such an immense expenditure of money.
At the beginning the Prime Minister urged several reasons why this scheme should be undertaken at once. One was on account of the congestion of traffic in the North-west, which, we are told, rendered action immediately, necessary. But the facts which have since come to light have exploded that reason entirely. It has been shown that the construction of the proposed transcontinental road would afford very little relief to any congestion of traffic that might exist in the North-west. Another reason given was that by this proposed line we would be able to transport all the traffic from the west to the east upon Canadian soil. Yet the policy of the government may have the very opposite effect in directing the traffic of the North-west into American channels. Another reas n given was that we required cheaper transportation ; yet the government have failed to give a single fact to show that this road will afford cheaper transportation of grain from the North-west to the Atlantic ocean. It is true that a new prophet has arisen among them in the last day or two in Hie person of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), one of whose claims is the right to change his opinion upon any great question from day to day as it may suit the party he is supporting for the time being. He has made a remarkable statement, one which I am sure will not be endorsed by any practical railway man on the continent of America, that grain can be transported from Winnipeg to the Atlantic ocean for the small sum of five and a half cents a bushel. He intimated that in some mysterious way some great improvements were to be introduced on this new road, something hitherto unheard of, that would enable the road to cut the rates exactly in two. Now the rates for carrying products on railways are based, not upon guess work, but upon wages, on the consumption of coal, on the capital invested-all these things are taken into consideration in making an estimate of the cost of transportation. So I think the prophecy of the hon. member for North Norfolk will not find any believers among practical railway men.
Another reason advanced for pushing forward this scheme was the possibility that the bonding privilege might be withdrawn. Now, Mr. Chairman, the word ' privilege ' itself is a misnomer in this connection, because the bonding privilege was simply an agreement between two parties for their mutual benefit. In this case, if there is any difference, it is in favour of the United States, it is a privilege for them rather than to Canada. But that reason has also been exploded, and now we hear nothing more of it. Then wre are told that this is to be an all-Canadian route, and we are urged to support it on that ground, as though we had not already an all-Canadian route. I say that the whole scheme is a wild and reckless one, and the statements that have been made in its support are of a most misleading character, indeed one would think that they were made with the intention to deceive. The distance between Winnipeg ai d Moncton is stated to be 1,800 miles, but all we know of the territory through which that road is to pass leads us to believe that it is of such a character that it will be most expensive to build a road through it. Why, Sir, the statement that this road could be built at a cost to Canada of only $13,000,000 was ridiculous in the extreme, and that contention also has been abandoned. The ministers are responsible for these misleading statements, they know very well that they are hollow, and we know that they are entirely fictitious.
Now, this enormous expenditure will be barren of results as compared with the advantages we might obtain by utilizing the natural means of communication which nature has placed in our power. Several hon. gentlemen have dwelt upon the advantage the country would derive from making connection between our water-ways and existing rail communication, and yet if the country undertakes this huge expenditure for a useless transcontinental railway, the work of making these connections between the waters of the Georgian bay and the St. Lawrence will have to be delayed for a generation. The development of our natural facilities would be ten times more advantageous to the country than the construction of this transcontinental railway. Any statements made by the member for North Norfolk that grain can be carried for five and a half cents a bushel from Winnipeg to Quebec, will not be supported by any practical railway man on this continent, and yet he is referred to by the Prime Minister as a railway expert whose ipse dixit should be taken without question. This House has a right to have from the government all the information that they possess in regard to the location of the proposed road. It should be borne in mind that the undertaking of a scheme like this may tie the hands of this country from going into something that would be far more advantageous to the country. The time may



come when we shall find that the increase in the debt as a result of this eutopian project may be a damage and an injury to the credit of the country. There may yet be time for delay, yet time to take into consideration whether it is wise to carry out this wild, extravagant project of building a line from Winnipeg to Moncton through an apparently unknown country at such a cost. To talk about $13,000,000 or to attempt to reduce it by any conjuring of an actuary to $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 is so ridiculously absurd that it is not believed by any hon. gentleman in this House and much less will it be believed in the country. However, there is one reason that may be put forward for haste and it is that the longer this matter is held up before the electors the more will it be discredited throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. We had on a former occasion the argument used that a crisis existed in connection witli the Yukon railway. There was no time for delay. There could not be sufficient delay to bring the scheme down to parliament but they must begin work before parliament met. What did the crisis amount to ? Simply nothing. It was a bugbear held up to promote a railway which was no good and which was fortunately defeated by the Senate. There is a possible chance of salvation from a similar means in connection with this road.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Before this clause is carried I think in the interest of my constituents and to try to do a part of my duty towards them I should accept the challenge thrown out by the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) and read this contract. I am satisfied that the hon. Postmaster General's refusal to answer my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) was not due to pettish-uess or to any bad humor towards my hon. friend, but because he himself had not read the contract, and I think it much better to read the contract to the House so that we will understand what we are asked to vote upon. It bears date the 29th day of July, 1903. The preamble of this Bill which we are asked to pass recites that this agreement is made between certain gentlemen acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company incorporated by an Act of the parliament of Canada. There, is no such company incorporated by any Act of parliament passed during the present session. The Governor General has not assented to any Bill incorporating any such company and the statement in the preamble of this Bill that there is such a company is not true. Knowing that there is no such company, I cannot personally or on behalf of my constituents consent to this Bill going through without making the strongest protest I can against it. I am confirmed in what I have said by the fact that the schedule contradicts the preamble of the Bill.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It does not say that the company is incorporated, but it actually tells us that it is to be incorporated. We have therefore to go to the trouble of reading this contract for the benefit of the hon. Postmaster General and we have to face that issue. We have a Bill saying that this country is making a bargain with certain gentlemen representing a company incorporated by this parliament while the schedule says they are to be incorporated, but the Governor General might not assent to the act incorporating the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway because he might very well refuse to assent to it without doing any violation to the constitution as the government might advise the Governor General uot to consent .to the Act and in doing so they would be doing no greater violation to the principles than the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has done to the principles that he has enunciated during the present session. The schedule says that the contract is made with the gentlemen who are named and who are described as :
Representing therein and acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company incorporated hy an Act of the parliament of Canada passed at the present session thereof.
Section 1, which we are asked to pass must be amended to make it consistent with the schedule. I wonder that some member of the government has not suggested it, I wonder that some member of the government has not said that it was only a typographical error. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not give us any information as to what the rates are to be, as to whether this $5,000,000 is to be paid out by progress certificates to the contractors who build the railway, and they will not give us any information as to whether they mean what they say in this Bill. I understand that the preamble of the Bill has not been considered. Probably it was not drawn by the same draughtsmen who drew the contract. That is the reason why members on this side of the House who have just as much interest, who have just as great a duty to perform to their constituents as Ministers of the Crown, should refuse to vote for this section. As I read the contract, if the hon. Postmaster General will pick out the clause that he says Will inform my hon. friend from Bothwell upon the question he asked him I will give way to my hon. friend and Tet him attend to the hon. Postmaster General in regard to that clause and I suppose that later on I will have an opportunity of resuming the reading of the contract.
An lion. MEMBER. You will have io keep them awake.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not know whether I can keep them awake or not, but they will be wakened up when they go to the country.
The agreement made the 29th day of July. 1903, between His Majesty the King, acting in respect of the Dominion of Canada.
3C629

I do not know wliy they did not say : 'Acting on behalf of the Dominion of Canada. This says in respect of the Dominion of Canada.' It is not ' with respect to the Dominion of Canada.' It is not with respect to the people's rights, it is not with respect to the rights of the voters of Canada. It is ' m respect of the Dominion of Canada.' I suppose some of those learned gentlemen, some of these gentlemen who have been giving such violent constructions to matters of law during the past few weeks, if they get into trouble with regard to this contract, will say that they did not make it on behalf of the Dominion of Canada, but in regard to the Dominion of Canada. They will say : No one pretended that the Governor General consented to this contract in the interest of the people. It is not made on behalf of the people, but ' in respect of the Dominion of Canada.' The contract says :
His Majesty the King, acting in respect of the Dominion of Canada, and herein represented and acting by the Hon. William S. Fielding, acting Minister of Railways and Canals, of the first part ; and Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, C.B., G.C.M.G.; the Right Honourable Lord Welby' G.C.B.; John A. Clutton-Brock ; Joseph Price, Alfred W. Smithers, ail of the city of London, England ; Charles M. Hays, Frank W. Morse and William Wainwright, all of the city of Montreal, in the Dominion of Canada, and John Bell, of the city of Belleville, in the said Dominion, representing herein and acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company to be incorporated by Act of parliament of Canada at the present session thereof, of the second part. [DOT]
I am surprised that the draughtsman who drew this contract did not use the same word in regard to whom was representing the Dominion of Canada as ,he did with reference to the representatives of the Grand Trunk Railway. We have His Majesty the King acting on behalf of the government of Canada, but we have not these gentlemen acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk.


William Humphrey Bennett: They took advantage of the King's absence in Ireland.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Perhaps they did. I must read the whole contract and endeavour in my humble way to explain it, so that we may know what it is. As we have been invited by the Postmaster General and Minister of Finance to ask questions, I would like to know what evidence there is as to the statement in this clause of the contract, as to their being fertile and productive lands in the provinces through which this railway will run ? That must refer to some of these mountains of imagination that exist in the mind of the Premier. That is a reasonable question and we should have from the government some confirmation of the allegation in the contract. Then again, we have a reference to ' eastern Canada,' and I should like to know from the government where does eastern Canada begin and where does it end. Is Ontario part of eastern Canada ; is 333J
Quebec part of eastern Canada, or does it refer to New Brunswick ? The government should give us some information as to that point. I do not believe myself that the Grand Trunk Pacific will ever carry ouiB this agreement, or that they intend to. I have read the contract several times,' but I doubt whether the government supporters who voted for it ever read it; if they did read it they would not have voted for it. We are entitled to have the opinion of those who made the bargain as to the construction that is to be put on this contract. A member of this House cannot be blamed for doing his duty according to his light, but he is to be blamed if he blows out the light and deliberately goes floundering around in the dark. That is what the government is doing and they seem to be anxious that the whole House should do the same thing. This contract says that it is intended to develop Canadian trade through Canadian ports. Does that mean the ports on the lakes, or does it mean the ports on the Atlantic sea-board, because the contract does not specify which. Moncton is not a seaport, and if it is meant that other seaports shall be reached the government should tell us what these ports are. I hope somebody will take a note of what I say, so that when the Postmaster General wakes up he may see it. I am not used to much courtesy from the Postmaster General, but I do not mind that much so long ns I am doing my duty by my constituents. Then the contract provides for a western port at or near Port Simpson in British Columbia. Why do not the government say definitely what is to be the easterly port and what is to be the westerly port ? Then the contract refers to this being the shortest available line through Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick. ,B\rt some of these gentlemen told us this road could be built as the crow flies, and the member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) undertook to tell us that the mountains and muskegs would disappear when the road was built. But here, I find in the contract that it is not to be the shortest line in Quebec and New Brunswick, but it is to be the shortest available line.
According to this contract, the eastern division should go to the city of Winnipeg, but the western need not start at the city of Winnipeg. It says: 'The western division shall comprise the portion of the said railway between the said city of Winnipeg, or some point on the eastern division, and the Pacific ocean.' But there is more than one way of reaching Winnipeg by the eastern division. You may bring your line north several hundred miles and then run south into Winnipeg, and the western division might not run into the city of Winnipeg, but connect at some point on the line north of that city, perhaps 300 miles away. I wonder that some of these very enthusiastic, energetic and eloquent members from

the North-west have not raised a fuss about this section. They have raised more trouble about much smaller matters than anybody else would raise about matters ten times their magnitude, but they have not a word to say about this very important point. Why, the lawyer who drew up this agreement and who made the eastern section go into Winnipeg, did not make the western section start from that city is something I fail to understand. Then, we have a provision that the said line of railway shall be constructed wholly upon Canadian territory. That is the only clause in the contract to which I can take no exception. If that clause were not there the railway, under the other clauses, might go to the moon. I am always bound to be just to everybody, and when I find the work of the draughtsman bad in every respect, I must, in common decency, give him credit for this provision. Were it not for that clause, one really could not tell where the railway was going.
Then I find that by clause 4 the eastern limit of the Rocky mountains is to be established after the line is located, although the Canadian Pacific Railway is running to the Rockies, and all the parties interested had to do was to take a trip out there and look around and interrogate the people; they did not take that precaution, and evidently do not know where the Rocky mountains are. They are going to locate the line first and find out where the Rocky mountains are afterwards. In the event of differences between the engineer of the government and the engineer of the company as to the determination of this division between the prairie and mountain sections a third arbitrator is to be chosen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. What that section is put in far, I cannot see, unless it is to give the Grand Trunk Pacific Company some chance to litigate and dispute as to what they are to do. In reference to the eastern section, it is argued that although this R'as to be constructed at the expense of the government, we need not trouble about the grades, curves, &c., because the government would not have to build it unless they found suitable grades and curves. Yet section 7 makes provision for arbitration in the event of a dispute as to the location of this line, and then the Grand Trunk can force this country to carry out the decision of the arbitrators.
42. It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of good3 through Canadian channels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the
through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
Now I want to ask the Postmaster General, or whoever is in the House representing him, whoever is left in charge, I want to ask him how he expects to enforce that clause ? Where is the penalty if they do uot carry this freight entirely on Canadian territory ? What is the practical benefit of that clause as it is 1 What are they going to do about it ? Suppose somebody goes and ships freight not specifically otherwise routed by the shipper-aud yet they do not carry it to destined ports in Canada, entirely on Canadian territory-supposing the Grand Trunk Pacific does not do it, what is the Postmaster General going to do about it ? Is he going to sue them upon a case carried in that way to some inferior court ? Is the government going to do it, or wait until a lot of freight accumulates and bring an action in the Exchequer Court for damages ? Who is going to bring the suit ? Who is going to pay the costs ? It is a matter of more than private interest, and the man who ships the goods is the man more particularly interested, or perhaps it is the man who receives the goods ; but how is this going to be enforced ? Why is this clause not drawn in such a way that the difficulty shall right itself ? Why is it not done in such a way. that the government shall have control over it ? I want to know these things from the Postmaster General,
I want to know who is to enforce that clause, or what good that clause 42 is going to be to the people anyway ?
43.	The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely,-the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
The same remark I made about section 42 applies to this one, the same question ought to be asked and answered by the government, or rather the government should give ns an explanation of this section without compelling us to ask for it.
44.	In respect of the tolls for any traffic carried partly over any line of railway operated by the company, and partly over any of the lines of the Intercolonial Railway, a fair and equitable rateable division of all such tolls shall be made by mutual agreement, or, iu case of dispute, such division shall be fixed by arbitrators appointed in the manner provided by paragraph 47 of this agreement, or by a board of commissioners which may hereafter be appointed as mentioned in paragraph 19 of this agreement, and with the right of appeal as therein mentioned.
What I want to know from the Postmaster General, or from some member of


Edward Arthur Lancaster: this government is, supposing this dispute arises, and supposing the government wants that settled, is the government to appoint these arbitrators or are the commissioners to do it ? Here is a double delegation, is the dispute to be settled by this tribunal or by that tribunal ? I want to know from the government which tribunal is going to act. Who is going to settle which tribunal it is ? I never saw such a contract drawn before. If we applied to the railway commission and asked them to settle it under that Bill, and supposing the Grand Trunk Pacific says: No, we want it settled by three arbitrators, we are going to appoint our arbitrator, you must appoint yours, and the Supreme Court judge will appoint the third-is the government going to say no, because we said we are going to have a railway commission ? Has the Grand Trunk Pacific a right to say: But we have our option ? Is it to be according to who speaks first, because both have equal jurisdiction here. I never heard of such a way of settling disputes in my life. I never knew the most ignorant layman undertaking to draw a contract, with the most crude knowledge of common law, to make such a mistake as to (suppose that you can refer a thing to two different tribunals and have no knowledge of what is going to happen.
(The debate was continued by Messrs. Kaulbach, Alcorn, Leonard, Rosamond, Fowler, Ingram, Sproule, Clarke, the Minister of Militia and Defence, the Minister of Agriculture and Mr. Monk.)
Mr. SPROULE moved that the Committee rise, giving as his reason that the Debates of the Committee were not being reported.
Motion negatived.
Mr. MONK called the attention of the Chairman to the fact that the Debates of the Committee were not being reported, and asked the ruling of the Chairman on that point of order.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Belcourt).: In my opinion, this Committee lias no jurisdiction in the matter at all. The presence of the 'Hansard' reporters here is in accordance with a recommendation of the Debates Committee made some twenty-five or thirty years ago. The majority of the Committee lias decided, in negativing the motion of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), that the presence of the reporters in the present instance is not necessary. The question is therefore settled. The Committee is of the opinion that it is not essential that the reporters should be present to report the proceedings of the Committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will you rule upon the point of order I have raised ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I rule that there is nothing before the Chair, that the point of order is not properly taken.
Mr. MONK appealed from the ruling of the Chair to Mr. Speaker, quoting from Bourinot in support of his appeal. He held that the reporters were officers of the House under regulations made by the Debates Committee and sanctioned by the House, instructing them to take down the proceedings of the House in committee.
Tlie CHAIRMAN (Mr. Belcourt) sent for Mr. Speaker.
Mr. BELCOURT reported to Mr. Speaker the point of order raised by Mr. Monk.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The point of order has been raised that the committee was not constitutionally constituted to proceed with business, because the proceedings of the committee were not being taken down by the official reporters. The chairman of the committee reports that he has decided that the committee was properly constituted, and the question which is now before the House is whether the decision of the chairman of the committee shall be sustained.
House divided on the question.
Angers,
Archambault,
Belcourt,
Bernier,
Borden (Sir Frederick) Brown,
Bureau,
Champagne,
Charlton,
Christie,
Copp,
Demers (St. John), Des.iardins,
Douglas,
Fisher.
Fortier,
Galliher,
Gould,
Heyd
YEAS : Messieurs Loy,
Macpherson,
McCreary,
McLennan,
Malouin,
Marcil (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure), Matheson,
Mayrand,
Meigs,
Mignault,
Morrison,
Oliver,
Paterson,
Proulx,
Puttee,
Riley,
Roche (Halifax), Schell.
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Scott.
Johnston (Cape Breton),Stewart,
Kendall,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Thompson (Haldimand Laurier (L'Assomption), and Monck),
Law,	Turcot,
LeBlano, Lovell,	Turgeon.-52.
 NAYS ; Messieurs
Barker,	Lavell,
Bennett,	Lennox,
Birkett,	Leonard,
Blain,	McIntosh,
Cargill,	Monk.
Clarke,	Morin,
Earle,	Osier,
Gourley,	Richardson,
Hackett,	Robinson (Elgin),
Haggart,	Roche (Marquette),
Halliday,	Sproule,

Ingram, -	Thomson	(Grey),
Johnston (Cardwell), Tisdale,
Lancaster,	Tolton,
LaRlviere.	Wilson.-30.
Motion carried.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I declare the ruling ot the chairman sustained.
Friday, September 4, 1903.
House again went into committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Chairman, when the question was raised I was endeavouring to show that it was a matter of right to have a record of the proceedings of this committee, so as to justify the course which the opposition are taking in defence of their rights in the consideration of a great and important measure. We have only that to fall back upon to justify ourselves before the great electorate, the tribunal of last resort in this country. In the discharge of their duties the opposition regard it as then-right to get all the information available in regard to this question ; yet I am credibly informed that no less a personage than the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) instructed his followers not to answer questions, to refuse to give any more information, no matter how important the question was, no matter how relevant. The government and their supporters were instructed to give no information, but to sit there in dumb silence and compel the opposition to proceed without regard to that information which they are entitled to get and which the government are compelled to give or else admit that they cannot give it. The government Is in duty bound to furnish this information. It is not the duty of the opposition to furnish it because the opposition has not been charged with the duty of determining the proposition which has been submitted to parliament. It is true that the government have laid some reports upon the Table of the House, nine-tenths of which do not refer in any way to the question which we are considering to-day. Very much of this information is entirely irrelevant to the question and was raked up out of the musty archives of this parliament. The opposition cannot be supposed to have this information, because they are not the custodians of the information that belongs to parliament. The government are the custodians of this information. When we ask verbally as to what the clauses of this measure mean the right hon. leader of the government says : Do not answer. We will force this measure through, we have not the cloture in this House, but we will resort to brute force in order to wear out the physical powers of the opposition and compel them through sheer exhaustion to allow this measure to go through, when in their judgment, it should not have been allowed to go through. Are we going to tamely submit to Mr. SPEAKER.
that as an opposition ? Would we be doing our duty if we submitted to it ? Would we not be abrogating o,ur functions and bringing the constitutional government into contempt ? In my judgment the opposition would not be doing their duty if they allowed it to go through. The government have assured us that there are mountains of information, and we ask them where it is. If that is a statement of fact, let the government back it up by producing the information, and laying it on the Table of the House. The reports to which the government and the members on the government side referred us may be of the most unreliable character, and besides that, parliament should be furnished with these reports; the members should not be compelled to search through the records of parliament and look over twenty or thirty thousand volumes in the library to find this information. The great aim of this railway is to have it a grain carrying road, and the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) lias stated that to be a successful grain carrying road it must not have grades of more than 20 feet to the mile. We have not at our disposal the information necessary to enable us to determine whether it will be possible to construct such a road through the country through which it is proposed to run, and in any case such a road could not be constructed for less than $40,000. $50,000 or $60,000 a mile. Have we any information that will lead us to the conclusion that we can so shorten the distance or so reduce the grades that it will lie possible to carry grain from Winnipeg to the coast cheaper than it is carried by the existing means of transportation ?
Mr. Chairman, permit me to call your attention to the indefinite nature of the clauses laying down the route of the proposed line. Really the only points which are definitely given are Moncton, Quebec, a point on the provincial boundary fifty miles from Lake Abitibi, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Dunve-gan. Then too I would ask the government if the clauses inserted in the Grand Trunk Pacific charter providing that this railway shall not run within thirty miles of an existing railway is to be observed. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) says that that clause is not to be read into this contract. Is that the case ? The Prime Minister will not deign to give a reply. Parliament is treated with contempt and the rights of the people are ignored. It is as well that this should be understood. I have pointed out to the Prime Minister the nature of this clause and have asked him if we are binding ourselves by that agreement and he will not reply. He will not afford us reasonable information. Not only have we a right to this information, but the people, who must pay tfce cost of this immense undertaking, will expect us to have a proper understanding of the nature of this contract before we decide upon it. The leader

of the government is leaving the House, abandoning his duty, and leaving the House to the guidance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden). Will these hon. gentlemen reply to my question ? By their silence they declare that the question I have asked is not worthy of courteous answer. I hope to repeat that question before the people, who are the judges of the government as well as of the opposition. I believe the people will say that it was our duty to gain this information before we allowed this measure to pass


Mr. HACKETT.: I have waited for a moment or two to give members of the government present an opportunity to answer the questions put by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). But I find that, while hon. gentlemen opposite do not hesitate to speak when an opportunity is afforded them to vilify their opponents, they will not rise to give us information that is necessary to a proper understanding of the question before us. The question asked by the hon. member for East Grey is a fair, proper and necessary question, and the government should give the House the information asked for. Yet we here, representatives of the people, and representing, as we believe, a majority of the people, are denied the information necessary for a proper consideration [DOT] of the subject under discussion. But the minority in this House has rights as well as the majority, and we are determined to obtain, as far as possible, the information the people of the country require in connection with this contract. A member of the government resigned because of this contract and, in his letter to the Prime Minister, declared that it was objectionable and alarming. Yet, it is forced upon this House and no information is forthcoming as to the expenditure involved or as to the nature of the country through which this proposed railway is to run. When we ask for information which will be of some use to us in forming a judgment as to the cost of this railway, when we ask what is the nature of the country through which it will pass, the only information vouchsafed us is that certain missionaries, noble men who traversed that country two hundred years ago in the prosecution of their self-denying labour of Christianizing the Indians, reported that it was a good country. But that is not sufficient to enable us to judge whether we should give a contract on these terms involving the * country in immense and unknown expenditure. Why, when did this idea originate ? I have here a book edited by Mr. J. Cas-jell Hopkins and dedicated to the right hon. Prime Minister. It contains a record of the principal events of last year. According to this work, it was only on the 24th of November last that the announcement
was made by Mr. Charles M. Hays, of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, that an independent company in alliance with the Grand Trunk would build a road from North Bay to the Pacific Ocean, giving as his reason the necessity for additional transportation facilities in the North-west and the importance of giving the Grand Trunk connection with that section of Canada. When Mr. Hays made that statement to a reporter of the Toronto 'Globe' there was no intention then of coming to this parliament and asking for aid. All that he required was the necessary legislation to enable the company to go on and build this road. When Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays appeared before the Railway Committee, all that they asked was the right to go on and build this line, they only asked for an Act of incorporation. While this parliament had been in session from the 12th of March to the 30tli of July, no intimation was given to this House that the government intended to assist this great scheme, but on the 30th of July the contract was laid on the Table of this House, binding the government and people of Canada to expend $150,000,000 in aid of this work. Now, Sir, are those Liberal principles ? Are those the principles advocated by these hon. gentlemen when they occupied a seat on this side of the House ? On every platform where they had addressed the people they insisted that no bonuses should be given to assist railways. But now we find that they are going to assist this Grand Trunk Pacific Company, not only by guaranteeing their bonds on the western section, but by building a line for them from Winnipeg to Moncton, without surveys, without explorations, taking this plunge in "the dark, and building a line that will cost from $100,000,000 to $125,000,000.	.
Now, Sir under these circumstances how and when are we to have government ownership of railways in this country '! There is to be no government ownership here. This road is to be operated by the company to whom it is to be handed over, and who, if they do not feel like doing so, will not be obliged to pay one cent to the government as interest or rent.
Now, Sir, I desire to turn your attention for a moment to the province of Prince Edward Island. This railway is called a national transcontinental railway. The Postmaster General as well as the Prime Minister stated that this railway was to open up every province in Canada. I desire now to say that it is not going to be of any advantage to the province of Prince Edward Island. My hon. friend and colleague from King's in that province (Mr. Hughes), a few evenings ago, stated that this railway would develop great coal mines which would be at once opened up through the province of New Brunswick. Now, I would like to ask any hon. gentleman in this House, where are the coal mines existing between Riviere

du Loup and Moncton ? The coal mines are lying east of Moncton, principally, therefore this railway will not in any way develop the coal mines lying east of Moncton. We have now the Intercolonial running from Moncton to Sydney, traversing the country where these great mines of coal and iron exist. This railway is to be built to Moncton, and I presume that the government intend, notwithstanding the efforts that we are making, to build this line of railway, and they will be backed up by their supporters. When that railway goes to Moncton, I have endeavoured to suggest a means by which it can be connected with the province of Prince Edward Island, and I moved an amendment that this company should acquire the railway now in existence between Sackville and Cape Tormentine, and place steamships on the route between Cape Tormentine and Carleton Point in Prince Edward Island, or any other convenient point, and maintain efficient communication winter and summer between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. That amendment was voted down by the government, and they are doing nothing, while asking the people of Prince Edward Island to contribute their full share to build and maintain this railway. They are not doing anything to assist them with regard to their winter communication. In the summer season we have good communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, but the great difficulty is in the winter season when the ice forms in the Gulf of St, Lawrence and the straits of Northumberland. The government of Canada agreed with the people of Prince Edward Island at the time of confederation in 1873 that they would maintain an efficient steam communication service winter and summer between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. That compact has not been carried out and the people of the island last year were labouring under as great difficulties almost as those under which they laboured thirty years ago. I, myself, in crossing about the 5tli of March from Prince Edward Island to the mainland on my way to Ottawa to attend to my duties as a representative of the people, was obliged to work my passage over on a little ice boat, and this, notwithstanding the fact that the government bound itself to maintain sufficient steam communication between the island and the mainland. Although we have been in session for 25 or 26 hours, the hon. gentlemen occupying the treasury benches and their supporters behind them have refused to stand up and explain the meaning of this proposition or to give any information in regard to it. If they have no information let them withdraw the measure and let them appeal to the people. There is no mandate from the people to go on with this proposition. I challenge them to appeal to the people and let them have an opportunity of deciding this question. We on the opposition side


Edward Hackett: of the House are endeavouring to do our duty to our constituents. We desire to have full information before we make a pledge of this kind involving such a large expenditure of public money. We are only doing our duty when we remain 25 or 26 hours in session with no intermission. Although I am not as young as I once was, I am still possessed of sufficient vitality to remain for a whole week and contend in the interests of my constituents and the people of Canada, to stand up for their rights, to see that the information in connection with this matter is brought down and that this government shall not sit quietly on the treasury benches having their relays, they going off one at a time taking their sleep or their comfort while we who are working in the interests of the people are not allowed the means of comfort which they enjoy. Notwithstanding all that we feel it our duty to contend for the people of this country and to stop if possible this large expenditure of public money uselessly thrown away for the purpose of assisting the Grand Trunk Pacific. Now, we have the alternate proposition introduced by the bon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). Hon. gentlemen opposite say that the railway which extends for 1,800 miles between Winnipeg and Moncton is going to cost $13,000,000 while the proposition of the leader of the opposition to build about 400 miles of railway is going to cost between $60,000,000 and $70,000,000. That is the kind of argument these hon. gentlemen use on the other side of the House. The proposition made by the hon. leader of the opposition is one that will commend itself to the people because it is a measure which will enable us to utilize the resources which we have at our disposal and obviate a reckless expenditure of public money by building a railway through an almost unknown land.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: Mr. Chairman, as a young member of this House, I feel it my duty to make a few remarks in regard to this railway proposition before this clause is passed. I would like, before proceeding with that subject, to ask the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) what caused the reporters of this House to stop taking the speeches made from about three o'clock up to eleven or twelve.


Peter Macdonald: To discuss the duties of the reporters is certainly out of order altogether, because that is not within our jurisdiction at all. The House has already settled that question.


Robert Johnston: I will not disobey the rules of the House, but my opinion is that none of the ministers want to answer that question. I have been here since the 12th of March and I took a deep interest in the proceedings of the Railway Committee during the time that they considered this transcontinental railway project.

I notice that the Grand Trunk Railway Company asked for a charter for nothing but the western division, the portion which they are to undertake under the present proposition. The question was threshed out for a long time, and a great many lion, members wanted to know whether this government were going to grant a subsidy to the railway, but we could not get that out of the ministers who attended the meetings of the Railway Committee. All the time that this committee was sitting some one or two of the ministers were hatching a scheme. I think this hatching started with Mr. Hays, tlie person who is trying to run this thing through, and I understand that he was assisted by the right bon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir AVilfrid Laurier). It seems to me that they have been able to hatch out the whole scheme, but they have not been able to secure the adherence to it of the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair).
' The great argument used in the Railway Committee was the need of improved transportation facilities in the west for the carrying out the grain crop. It was generally agreed in the committee that if the Grand Trunk were going to build this road from North Bay to the Pacific they should get some assistance. Some of the members from the maritime provinces got their heads together and compelled Mr. Hays to say in the committee that he was willing to go to Moncton instead of to an Atlantic port. He was willing to do anything, knowing that the government were to build this road so that it did not matter to him. To my mind, the way to relieve the congestion in the west would be to have started the western section first, and, if necessary, assist the Grand Trunk Railway in building an outlet to the lakes. If that had been done, I am sure that the people of Ontario and the older provinces would have endorsed such a proposition. As to the argument that this road will open up the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec for settlement, and will develop the timber resources of that country,
I am inclined to think that the people of Ontario would prefer to have that timber left for the next generation instead of running railways through it. AVhy should we set out to settle this country when we have to-day millions of acres of land in the North-west that we have not yet colonized, although the government are spending vast amounts of money in the attempt to colonize it. AVliy should we be asked to open up this new territory when we are compelled to bring in at $5 a head Doukliobors and people of that kind, and even to settle that western country, which should be settled with good British subjects.
Then look at the indefiniteness of the route. AVliat would be said if any township council should propose to open a new road, a blind road for instance without having proper surveys made. It seems to me that
the government do not care where they run this railway so long as they are able to spend $100,000,000 or $125,000,000 of the people's money. The Minister of Finance came before this House and said it would cost $80,000,000 to build this eastern section. But he said that we should not have to pay more than $13,000,000. Suppose the minister had gone to his wife.


An hon. MEMBER.: Is that the Minister of Agriculture ?


Robert Johnston: No, the Minister of Finance ; if it had been the Minister of Agriculture I could forgive him. Fancy the Minister of Finance of this great Dominion of ours going to his wife and saying :	' Margaret '-or whatever her name
is-' I have $300 and I am going to buv a farm for $10,000.'	' AVell,' she says, 'Minister, you cannot do that, you have only got $300.' * ' But I will borrow the $10,000.'
AA^ell, he buys the farm and pays the $300 of interest. After he has spent his $300 he lias to pay the $10,000 for the farm, as he has only paid the interest on that money. So far as I can see, the Minister of Finance was informing the people of this country of the amount of money they would lose, not the amount they would put into this railway. From what has been said by western members it would appear that there is nothing in the argument advanced that this road will be able to carry lumber from Quebec to the North-west Territories, for it has been stated positively that lumber can be brought from British Columbia and sold in the North-west Territories for less than it would cost to haul that lumber west from Quebec. In the past the government when railway matters were under discussion, have always put forward the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) to speak for them as being the one man on whom they depended. Now, because he has left the government owing to his refusal to obey the party whip, he is abused by them and he has been abused by the hon. member for AVestmoreland whom I believe is a creature of the hon. exminister. That gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) went to tlie committee room and opposed this Bill for six or eight hours but now. as soon as the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals resigned his place he changed his front and is strongly supporting the Bill. Surely he was either not in earnest at the time that he opposed this Bill for six hours in the committee or else he is not in earnest now. I believe that his real opinion was expressed in the committee room when there was no prospect of a vacancy in the cabinet. A change came over the spirit of his dream. As soon as the Minister of Railways and Canals resigned his portfolio the hon. member (Mr. Emmerson) hied him home aud came back here robed in white, honestly expecting that he was going to get the reward of an honest man

who had thrown up the portfolio of Railways and Canals.	[DOT]
All that I can gather as to the route of the proposed line is that there is a starting point and a quitting point. There will be a transcontinental line, if not now, some time in the future, but this country should own the line, other-wise what benefit will it be to the people of the North-west in keeping down rates ? If the line is in the hands of a private company, that company can arrange with others to keep up rates. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) told us in the Railway Committee that the Intercolonial was most useful to the maritime provinces, because it'gave them cheap rates. But that meant that the people of the Dominion had to pay the deficit on running that road, in order to give this benefit to the people of the maritime provinces. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser-) opposed that road in the Railway Committee unless the government were to own it.


Mr. FRASER.: I made no such statement.


Robert Johnston: The hon. gentleman stated in the Committee that he was opposed to giving bonuses to railroads, but w-ould not object to a road if the company built it on its own capital.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I could hardly have said that, seeing that I am seeking a public grant for a railroad in my own county. I do not object to railroad bonuses if the country gets good value for them. In the Committee, on the Grand Trunk Pacific charter, the attempt was made to discuss what was to be given to the company by the government, and I joined with others in saying that that was not the time for that discussion.


Robert Johnston: Did the hon. gentleman, or did he not, oppose the road to Moncton ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Certainly not. I was one of the maritime province members who insisted on that. This is my final answer to the hon. gentleman. If he thinks to draw me into a discussion to help him in taking up the time of the House, he will fail.


Robert Johnston: I think my recollection is as good as the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Fraser's), and I say that, in the first place, he opposed the road going to Moncton.


Peter Macdonald: Order. The statement of an hon. gentleman upon such a matter must be accepted.


Robert Johnston: I have stated my recollection, and if it is not the same as that of the hon. gentleman and yourself, Mr. Chairman, I cannot help it. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), when he told us, in May last, that we were to have a board of railway commissioners. Hon. gentlemen opposite are very fond of running things by Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).
commission. They told us, ljefore they came into office, that they knew how to run the country, but the first thing they did was to appoint a commission to advise them as to what they should do. It cost .several thousand dollars, but it was a good thing, for on the strength of that commission's report some part of the national policy has been retained. The hon. member for North Norfolk has told us that for eighteen years he believed in the national policy, though supporting the party that opposed it. And he told us that before that he and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) had done all they could to induce the Prime Minister of that time, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, to adopt the national policy before Sir John Macdonald did.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Cardwell) is making a most absurd statement.


Robert Johnston: This matter has often been referred to in the presence of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton), and he has never denied it, and I believe it is a true statement. And I have heard him say in conversation-not in the House- that the party in power had used him ridiculously mean, though he had worked for* them against his own judgment for years and years.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Robert Johnston: At one o'clock we took a well deserved rest, because I noticed last night that up to the hour .of three o'clock, while the ministers of the Crown appeared to be asleep in their seats, there appeared to be no one in the House in the interest of the present government, with the exception of the Chairman, who was wide awake enough to pay any attention to the proceedings. I thought that the railway scheme before the House must have been considered a very frivolous thing on the government side, when none of the ministers or their supporters were wide enough awake to listen to the debate. When you left the Chair, Sir, I w-as drawing attention to the amount of confidence that we have learned to place in the hon. member for North Norfolk. It is within the memory of this House, I think it was about tw-o sessions ago, that there was a dinner in the rooms below this chamber, on which occasion the Prime Minister lauded the Minister of Trade and Commerce for having suppressed his views in favour of free trade in the interest of harmony in the present government. Now- I ask myself what must have been the feeling of the hon. member for North Norfolk when he saw that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was rewarded with a portfolio in the cabinet for having suppressed his views in free trade,

and I thought that the member for North Norfolk himself was probably also moved with a hope of obtaining a portfolio when he argued against his own convictions and claimed that this railway would be superior to the water-ways of this country for the transportation of the grain products of the west to the Atlantic ports. Let me also refer to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan). He likened himself to Sir Charles Topper. The member for Cumberland said that he had put a motion on the Order Paper declaring that all goods coming in under the British preference should land at Canadian ports. He could do that, hut he did not dare to make a motion to that effect in this House where he would be obliged to vote for it. Nevertheless he likened himself to Sir Charles Topper, the great man in the successful launching of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The only way in which he resembles Sir Charles Tupper is in size, but insofar as the qualities of statesmanship are concerned, the resemblance ceases altogether. He gave his reasons for not bringing the subject of his motion on the Order Paper to a vote in the House, saying, I think, that he got a letter, or that some one had whispered to him that he had better not bring this matter to a vote for fear the Americans might take away the bonding privileges now enjoyed by this country.
An impression has been sought to be made by lion, gentlemen opposite that the opposition was trying to hold up this government, that they were killing time. Now we know for a dead fact that the House was in session for three or four weeks when the government had nothing ready to bring down but the estimates. We found out afterwards that the reason they had nothing to bring down before the House was that they were quarrelling among themselves over this railroad. It may not have been such a quarrel as the ex-Minister of Public Works referred to when he said ' they were fighting like blazes.' Still, there must have been a good deal of fighting going on in the cabinet, when the ex-Minister of Railways, who, we are told, is not fit to unloose the shoes of the Prime Minister, felt it his duty to withdraw from the cabinet. I think there must have been other members of the government who were pretty deeply engaged in the quarrels.
Now, Sir, I am opposed to this scheme for a great many reasons, some of which I have already given on a previous occasion, and I will now give another one. I am opposed to committing the country to this enormous expenditure for building this road when the government do not know anything about -where it is going to pass, they know nothing about the route except where it is to start and where it is to stop. Perhaps they have a vague idea of the country through which it will pass, and that is all. I notice that members on the government
side admit that the Grand Trunk Pacific will not be in running order for four, five .six or eight years, but that the western portion may be in running order very soon. We know that there is a certain portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway that does not pay even now, and has not paid. Now if that is the case with a portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway through an uninhabited region of a comparatively small extent, how can we expect this Grand Trunk Pacific will ever pay over nearly the whole extent of the route between Quebec and Winnipeg ? I would like to know how many more immigrant agents the government will need to bring in the people to open up the new country on the line of this proposed road.
1 was perfectly willing that the Grand Trunk Pacific should get a charter to build a railway from the west to some point on the Georgian Bay or Lake Superior, but I am not willing and I do not think the country would he willing to sanction the proposal which is now before the House. My opinion is that if the question were put before the province of Ontario at least whether that road Should be built there would be ten to one voting against it. I would not balk at a large expenditure to improve the water-ways of this country. They belong to us, they are a natural heritage and if the improvement of our system of water-ways were completed we would not require anything but boats to carry the produce from the west. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) undertook to paint the banners of the two parties. He said that when we go to the country for re-election, let it be this year or next year hon. gentlemen opposite would go with the banner, ' Laurier, prosperity and victory,' and we would go with the banner, ' Borden, blue ruin and Gainey.' I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should attempt to charge the Liberal-Conservative party with raising the cry of blue ruin w'hen everybody knows that it was the party in power that raised that cry. I think that the least the government can do is to give the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Itt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) a leather medal hallooing blue ruin. This party is not open to the charge of having made use of that cry. I remember that these lion, gentlemen hallooed all over the country for commercial union. I am pleased to know it seems now we are all loyal Canadians. From this side of the House we have never said anything which was not in accordance with the spirit of true loyalty to Canada and the old flag. I remember a time, when in the township that I live in and where there used to be 300 of a Reform majority, we were laughed at if we talked about the old flag. Now nobody laughs at any man who proclaims his loyalty to the old flag. The majority was reduced in the last election to nineteen, but wre hope to make it twenty-

five in our favour in the next election and we may make it one hundred against this railway scheme. Since the hon. member for Cumberland who Is an older member of this House than I am has ivailed himself of the privilege of painting a banner for his party and for ours, I think it is not out of place for me to attempt 1o paint a banner for the (two parties as well. I would say that the two parties, when they go to the country, let it be this fail, or next year, or whenever we do go, will have these words inscribed upon their banners : ' The Liberal-Conservative party-E. L. Borden, Canada for the Canadians, protect the industries needing protection, grant no bounties, no bonuses-and victory,' and the Liberal party

'Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Cob-den medal, Stratton and defeat.' I venture to say that when we go to the country on the issue now before the House my banner will be found to have been painted right and his will have been found to have been painted wrong. Hon. gentlemen opposite for years kept telling the country what they were going to do for the farriers when they got into power. They got into power and what have they done ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Nothing.


Robert Johnston: Yes, they have destroyed our hinder twine industry. They let the American binder twine in to displace the Canadian hinder twine. They have taken the duty off and granted a bounty of about $7 a ton on last year's production- of binder twine. The fanners have a great deal of that to pay but there is one part they have not to pay, and while everybody pays according to his consumption of products he is also obliged to pay a share of the binder twine bounty that is given in -this country although he may not require to use that article. Then, hon. gentlemen said that we were bled white by the national policy.


Peter Macdonald: I am afraid the hon. member is getting on the national policy instead of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell. This is a national railway. Hon. gentlemen opposite told us that they were going to give us an American market for our barley, but instead of doing that they gave the Americans free access to our market with their corn and thus destroyed the growing of barley in Ontario at least to the extent of the number of bushels of Indian corn that is brought in for feeding purposes. I have been looking over the schedule of the redistribution or gerrymander Bill and I find that


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman must not take up the gerrymander Bill so soon. We will be into that next week and an opportunity will -then be afforded.


Robert Johnston: 


Robert Johnston: I was just saying what the government was professing to do for the farmers In the building of this railway and then I was going on to illustrate it by showing the representation that the farmers will have in this House if this Redistribution Bill is passed. Now I notice that there are seven farmers in this House who cannot possibly he here after another election on account of farmers' constituencies being abolished and handed over to professional men of one kind or another. That is another thing which hon. gentlemen have done for the farmers notwithstanding the fact that the greater part of the taxes required for the building of this Grand Trunk Pacific and the greater part of the moneys contributed by the government towards the building of other railways have been paid by the farmers. This line is placed away back out of reach of the farmers of the old settled provinces and, as the government say, it is going -to open up new territory and thus will give the new men a better chance than the settlers have now in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces.


Mr. LAVELL.: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I have much chance of getting any information on this subject. The questions that have been put to the ministers have been systematically ignored and no information has been -given to us, notwithstanding that the Prime Minister said that we have mountains of information. As the Minister of Justice is in the House, and as I have noticed his unvarying courtesy in setting members of the opposition right in their misconstruction of points of law in which he was interested, I shall direct iny remarks to him. I wish to refer particularly to section 17 of the contract. I think it will be found that the explanation given to the hon. junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) does not touch everything in connection with this section, which says :
No addition shall be made to the cost of construction or to -the capital of construction account in respect of customs duties in cases where there -is direct importation of material or supplies by the government.
In connection with section 17, we must read section 8 of the Act and section 5 of the contract. Section 5 of the contract- and after all it is the contract that should govern in this case as far as the estimate of the cost of construction is concerned, because that is the one that lias been signed by the government-says :
Th-e said eastern division shall be constructed by, and at the expense of, -the government, upon such location and according to such plans and specifications as it shall determine, having due regard to directness, -easy gradients and favourable curves.
And now it will be noticed that the wording of the section is almost but not identi-

cal with tlie wording of section 5. Section 8, tile clause of the Act affecting this matter, differs in one little point from section 5 of tlie contract. Section 8 says :
The eastern division of the said Transcontinental Railway extending from the city of Moncton to the city of Winnipeg, shall be constructed by or for the government in the manner hereinafter provided and subject to the terms and provisions of the said agreement of the 29th July, 1903.
Now, the section of the Act says ' by or for tlie government ' ; the agreement says it must he constructed ' by the government.' I am not contending for a moment that that would not permit the government to make contracts for that work, divide that whole mileage into certain sections and give out contracts for them, but I am contending that having it stated that it is to he constructed for the government makes tlie contractors intermediate agents whom tlie Grand Trunk will not need to recognize in any way. If the contractors do it for the government they are merely agents for the government for their part of the work, and as a consequence any importation made by the contractor of material or supplies, as has been well pointed out by tlie lion, junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), will be an importation by the government. I do not believe the government would contend in a court of law that any duty paid by a contractor or an importation made by him could possibly be added to tlie cost of construction. I would like to ask tlie Minister of Justice whether, under these circumstances, in view of the wording of paragraph 5 as distinguished) from section 8 of the contract, it does not follow as a matter of course that even if duties were paid by contractors on any materials or supplies imported the duties so paid will have to be deducted from the cost of construction.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The question that has been asked is a perfectly legitimate one and I may say as a question that necessarily very seriously engaged the attention of those responsible for the drafting of this contract. The object was that materials imported by the government would be treated in exactly the same way as materials now imported by the government in connection with the Intercolonial.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You do not say for the purposes of the road.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the view we had. Of course lawyers may differ, but I submitted this matter to the Deputy Minister of Justice who, under the Order in Council and the statutes regulating the Department of Justice, is the legal adviser to the department. And his opinion was that this exemption would apply only to materials imported directly by the government to be used by the government, and not to materials imported by the contractors. But if there be any doubt, It can be set at rest at any time by any amendment which will make the meaning more clear.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That being the case, I presume, when we come to the clause, tlie Minister of Justice will strike it out.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot strike out a clause which is intended to protect the government.


John William Bell: I am glad to hear this clear expression of opinion from the Minister of Justice. I would suggest that in view of the difference between paragraph five of the contract and section eight of the Bill, an amendment is required. In section fi ve the words used are ' shall be constructed by and at the expense of the government. Section eight says, * shall be constructed by or for the government.' This may sound like hair splitting, but great troubles have arisen before now out of the omission of a few words. We will have to take up the agreement in connection with section two of the Bill.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The better plan would, be to take up the agreement clause by clause in connection with this section. If we had done that in the beginning, we would have made more progress.


John Reeve Lavell: I was just about to suggest that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I made the suggestion, but it was not accepted.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: On the first day we were in committee. I said that the best way would be to consider the agreement clause by clause.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That suggestion was not contradicted by the First Minister.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It was not accepted.


Peter Macdonald: There is a consensus of opinion in favour of discussing the various clauses of the agreement before passing this section. It might be well at present to adopt that method.


John Reeve Lavell: The contract may be perfectly clear, but it does not seem clear to me. The Minister of Justice has a faculty of expressing himself in such fashion that those who hear him at least imagine that they do not misunderstand him. I do not think there is a man in the House more capable of putting the meaning he attaches to a clause in such shape that it cannot be misunderstood. I am glad to know that the intention of the contract is clear, that only the importation made direct by the government itself, not through an agent ahd hot through a contractor


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not only those things imported by the government

direct, but those used by the government iu connection with the road. If the government made an importation and handed it over to a contractor that importation would not escape the payment of customs duty.


John Reeve Lavell: In view of what the hon. minister has said, I do not think he will consider me hypercritical if


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I do not complain.


John Reeve Lavell: I do not think he will consider me hypercritical if I suggest that this clause does not convey that meaning to me. And, even at the cost of some repetition, I wish to say that it is most misleading to have the wording of the Act and the wording of the contract different. I think it would be well, before the contract is ratified that it should be made clear. As I say, I do not doubt the ability of the Minister of Justice so to draw a contract that its meaning will be quite clear. I understand the hon. gentleman to say that direct importation applies only to material actually used by the government. Of course, the government could enter into a contract with a contractor to supply a certain article.


John Graham Haggart: It does not need to do so.


John Reeve Lavell: No. In this way they could supply materials needed in the original building of the road. But I understand the minister to say that that clause applies only to such material as might be brought in for tlie betterment of the road. 1 submit that one would need inside information in order to interpret the clause in that way. But we ought to keep within the four corners of the contract

we cannot refer to the statute or to anything else. I think it would be a very simple matter for the hon. minister without a suggestion from this side to make that thoroughly clear. There can be no harm done, if the Grand Trunk Pacific so understand it now. I take it, therefore, that we do not need to discuss the effect of this upon the manufacturing interests of this country, that the whole will be put in such shape that we do not need to consider that.
As the Minister of Justice is here, I would like to refer to another paragraph of the Bill, and section of the statute. Under section 27, of the contract, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company undertakes that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall acquire and take common stock to the amount of $25,000,000, except shares held by directors not exceeding one thousand shares, and shall hold the same during the term of the lease, and so long as any of the bonds guaranteed by the government under the agreement remain outstanding unpaid. I am not. at this moment, discussing the wisdom of the clause. As I have Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
said, I am not going into the merits of any of them at the present moment. I only seek to find out how far the clause carries out the implied intention, and how far it is in accordance with the statutes. This agreement as has been several times mentioned, no doubt, is between the King, and Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and others representing the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company incorporated by an Act of the parliament of Canada passed at the present session. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada is not a party to this agreement in any sense, if I have read it correctly. I admit that the gentlemen named, Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, Mr. Hays, Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Bell are well known in connection with the Grand Trunk, but the Grand Trunk Company, as such, is no party to the contract. It is no more bound by it than I am-in fact, not so much, I believe, as I am bound as one of the citizens of Canada. This paragraph that I have referred to is simply an undertaking on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company that a certain corporation shall obtain shares and shall hold them during the term of the lease and so long as any of the bonds guaranteed by the government remain outstanding unpaid. It may be said that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada has only certain powers under its charter, and that that company will require the consent of the government or this parliament in order to hold shares in any railway company or sell them.
Now, in this section 7 of the Bill, I will admit that there is one word of connection between the authority given under that section and the agreement: ' Subject to the provisions of the agreement entered into between the government and Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and others representing and acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.' But I submit there is absolutely nothing in that to tie down the shareholders or the directors, or to bind any person to whom this stock might be transferred by a meeting of the directors or by a vote of the shareholders. I submit that there is nothing that will bind the Grand Trunk Company to hold these shai'es ns an undertaking on their part. Now, the Grand Trunk Railway Company is an existing corporation, and can speak for itself : and if it is thought advisable for the Grand Trunk Railway Company to hold that stock it ought to be possible to say so without ambiguity. to see to it that they should continue to hold it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I understand the hon. gentleman to say that under the contract as we have it now, the Grand Trunk Railway Company is not bound, not being a party to the contract, to take these shares and to hold them. He argues that they cannot be bound to take nor can they be bound to hold them until such time as

they enter into a contract for that purpose. But they cannot enter into that contract until this Bill is passed giving them authority to do so.


John Reeve Lavell: That is not exactly my point. In the first place, in answer to that suggestion of the minister, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company is not in existence. Now, ft is possible for the Grand Trunk Pacific not even incorporated, to join in this contract, subject to ratification by parliament, and would it not be possible for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company at least to concur in that clause ? There is more than one clause that affects the Grand Trunk Company, one is the clause respecting the guarantee of the bonds, concerning which later on I hope to say something. Would it not be possible for all these parts of the agreement to which the Grand Trunk Pacific are a party, to be at least entered into temporarily, subject to the ratification of parliament, but,. my point is this, that this agreement may be ratified by parliament and it may be so far carried out that the Grand Trunk Company will buy these shares. But what is there in this agreement, or in the Bill, that will compel the Grand Trunk Company to hold these shares ? The agreement can be carried out. It is only a part of the contract. The Grand Trunk Company might hold these shares for ten years, and in the meantime it is possible the road might be built, and then the Grand Trunk' Company could dispose of those shares, and authority is actually given them to sell those shares by section 7.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In my view section 27 of the contract, which provides that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall acquire and take common stock to the extent of $25,000,000, will not have been complied with until such time as the agreement has been entered into with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to take it and to hold it within the terms of this section. That is already one of the terms of the agreement. My hon. friend will remember that this agreement is conditioned upon tiie company being incorporated.


John Reeve Lavell: Even then, it seems to me it is a very slender hold that the government has on it. We are not discussing the Grand Trunk Pacific side, nor the Grand Trunk side, what we are discussing is, that part of the contract entered into on behalf of the government, and what I ar.k is, What is there, so far as the government is concerned, in the shape of a guarantee, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company will enter into a contract to hold the stock ? Supposing this contract is adopted and the Grand Trunk Pacific is incorporated, then the Grand Trunk Pacific proceeds to carry out this agreement with the government. Now in dealings by the officers of the government with the Grand Trunk Pacific, they
do not control the internal workings of the contract except in so far as the railway is concerned, and the mortgages and the bonds. The company is incorporated, $25,000,000 of stock is handed over to the Grand Trunk Railway Company-what is there that gives the government a right to ask the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk for the guarantee that the Grand Trunk is going to hold that stock ? It seems to me the Grand Trunk Pacific would find a sufficient answer if they stated : We have given our undertaking. That is in the contract, and that is all there is in the contract ; it says that the company undertakes this. Apparently we have to rest satisfied with the undertaking of the company. I see the Minister of Justice shakes his head.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: We must disagree on that.


John Reeve Lavell: I am sorry we do not agree, tout I see nothing in the contract that would enable the government so to supervise the bargain between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk as to see that this should be done. I presume, as a matter of law, that the government could insist on the Grand Trunk Railway making some form of agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, to which the government would not, however, be a party in any way. It would be made between these two railway companies, which, having two bodies, still have only one soul, if they have any at all, and what is to hinder them making up their minds that they will dissolve that agreement ? In what way has that stock to be issued, especially in view of section 7. which gives the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company the right to sell that stock when certain formalities have been provided. There was a famous American bishop not long ago who made the statement that this was an era of great bank managers and railway presidents, rather than an era of able statesmen. I feel convinced that when you are going to enter into a contract with a railway company you must watch everything, and I do not think that anybody knows that better than the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick). I would suggest that if this contract is going to be considered clause by clause, something should be done towards seeing that this stock is not going to be transferred. I know it may be asked by a great many people:	What difference does it make
whether the Grand Trunk Railway Company hold the stock or whether their shareholders hold the stock ? Personally, I do not think much can be done in the way of a contract to settle the question as to who should hold the stock, nor do I think very much benefit will accrue, but that is another matter. The question is of importance. if we are going to prevent a good deal of what the hon. member for West

Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) calls grafting, and of which he seems to approve so strongly. I would like to call attention to paragraph 28 and paragraph 34, both of which are familiar to hon. members of this Commit-mittee, and which I would like to read while we are discussing the connection of the Grand Trunk Railway Company with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and the holding by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of practically all the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. If I remember correctly, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is incorporated with a capital stock of $45,000,000, of which $20,000,000 is preferred stock and $25,000,000 common stock. Consequently, the whole of the common stock will be held by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, less 1,000 shares to be used by the directors. The ordinary individual is under the impression that a man who holds $100 worth of stock has paid $100 for it, but that is not always the case. These shares are to be held by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. What is to be paid for them ? Where does the money go that is paid for them ? Does the Grand Trunk Railway pay anything ? I submit that the contract practically establishes on the face of it that it pays nothing for them. Section 28 says :
For the purpose of aiding the company in the construction of the western division, the government shall guarantee payment of the principal and interest of an_ issue of bonds to be made by the company for a principal amount equal to seventy-five per centum of the cost of construction of the said division, as defined and ascertained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph eighteen hereof ; but such principal amount shall not, in any case, exceed thirteen thousand dollars per mile of the mileage of the prairie section, nor thirty thousand dollars per mile of the mileage of the mountain section, although seventy-five per centum of such cost of construction may have exceeded the said respective sums per mile.
Section 28 provides that the bonds shall be guaranteed by the Dominion government, and consequently bonds that are held practically at par, bonds for which this country is responsible, will provide for the building of three-quarters of the road. Now, section 34 is very suggestive in its wording, and it is complementary to section 28 : .
Inasmuch as the bonds to be guaranteed by the government only make provision for a part of the cost of construction of the western division, the company hereby agrees that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall guarantee bonds of the company for the balance required for the .construction of the said western division, exclusive of the said twenty million dollars required for first equipment, which the company is required to provide under paragraph twenty-two of this agreement, and the company may Issue a second series of bonds, to be guaranteed as aforesaid by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada to be a second charge upon the property described in paragraph twenty-five (b) hereof, and to be Mr. LAVELL.
subject to, and to rank upon, the said property next after the said bonds so to be issued and guaranteed by the government.
That shows quite clearly that as far as the cost of the construction of the road is concerned, bonds are to be issued for the whole cost. Seventy-five per cent of the bonds are to be guaranteed by the government and 25 per cent by the company. Not one cent of the money of the shareholders then goes into the building of the road, and as far as the building of the road is concerned, half a dozen men as impecunious as myself could go to work and build the road if they could get the Grand Trunk Railway Company to guarantee that 25 per cent. It is expected that a certain amount in bonuses will be given. These bonuses are not to be attached by any of these bonds, and it is very improbable that a road like that would be built without getting some bonuses, particularly where it passes through settled parts of the country. They will have these bonuses, and then they will have $20,000,000 of preferred stock. What are they to do with that ? Where does the rolling stock come from ? The rolling stock comes from that $20,000,-
000.	Provision is made in the contract for spending $20,000,000 on rolling sto-ck. If $20,000,000 comes from the preferred stock, any bonuses they get go into the pockets of the promoters apparently. No provision is made in this agreement for any money paid by the shareholders for preferred stock, or otherwise, going into the construction of the road, and no provision is made for any bonuses going into the construction of the road. The cost of construction is supposed to he entirely covered by the bonds. If that be so, I say that to carry out this agreement, to build that road and to equip it with $20,000,000 worth of rolling stock, does not require that one cent shall be paid for the common shares of the company. The agreement does not contemplate any such thing. It does not ask for one cent more expended than is called for by the preferred stock, and if it be possible to sell the preferred stock at par, then the Grand Trunk Railway Company will not have to pay one cent for their stock.
The result is that, at a time when, in all probability, settlers will be rushing in-for I am one of those who believe that there will be a great influx of population into that country and that for many years to come great interest will be manifested in the North-west Territories of Canada and that this territory west of Winnipeg, through which this railway passes, will develop rapidly and provide a great amount of trade [DOT]-tills stock for which apparently not a cent is to be paid, which is given as a gift to tlie Grand Trunk will most certainly be a saleable stock, and I submit that it should be a dividend-bearing stock. That particular part of the road should pay, so that

practically this will be giving a large bonus to the Grand Trunk and one of two tilings will happen : either the Grand Trunk will get that stock for nothing and it will become saleable after the road has been in operation for a few years, or else it will have developed that the road is not a paying road. Then the road will have no assets and the government will, in common parlance, be ' in the soup.' If that road cannot pay dividends in ten years after it is built, it will never pay, and will be a losing concern. If it is to be a losing concern, then there will he something to be said in connection with another paragraph, hut at the present time I am dealing witli paragraphs 28 and 34 in order to show that it is very important to know how far the Grand Trunk Railway Company is getting this stock as a free gift. It does seem as if some provision should be made by which the government should hold that stock. If it is going to be given away why should not the country have it. I can see no special reason why that provision should be in. I presume the Minister of Justice did not put that clause in as a practical joke; I am sure he was putting it in to mean something and that it was considered that the government would derive some benefit from it. I do not propose to go fully into the agreement now. I prefer to wait and see whether this contract is going to be taken up clause by clause. There are a number of very important items in connection with the securities which will bear very careful consideration. There are one or two clauses which, I think, should be left out. I would direct attention to paragraph 32, the one which provides that the government should pay interest on the amount of bonds equal to the principal of the bonds guaranteed by the government on account of construction during the first seven years from the date of issue. It is not in regard to this that I am speaking, but in regard to the provision that is made in case of default. I submit that this paragraph, which is a long one, is very misleading if it is supposed that by it any security whatever is given to the government. In tlie first place, the government guarantees file bonds and guarantees the payment of tlie interest. Now, as long as these bonds are in the hands of outsiders, if the government pays that interest, I admit that section 32 provides definitely that while that discharges the liability of tlie bondholders, it does not discharge the liability of tlie company for that interest, andi what is tlie use of this contract saying that tlie government is subrogated to the rights of the holders of the bonds. The government can not act on these bonds or foreclose the mortgage unless it is prepared to take up the principal money of the bonds. I would like the Minister of Justice to explain.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the reason we drew the contract as it is 334
to meet the special difficulty my hon. friend lias spoken of. We have foreseen that difficulty, which might be a real difficulty, and have drafted the clause so as to meet it.	.


Mr.   L.WELL@: I shall listen [DOT]with close interest when the time conies to bear how the lion. Minister of Justice will explain that. I would like also to ask what that last paragraph is for, the last part of "paragraph 32. The company may give to the government bonds for the interest due, capitalized, payable in forty years with interest, and in any event the interest so capitalized and the bonds so given shall continue to be secured by the said mortgage to secure the bonds guaranteed by the government. There is just to be one mortgage. The government has no mortgage on the branch lines or franchises or bonuses or subsidies, and will in reality have a mortgage on nothing but what it shall have paid for itself. If any default be made in the payment of the interest, tlie government will have to take over the road. I am not saying that there will be a default, but we are dealing with possibilities and with the form and construction of the contract without going into its merits. The hon. member has told us that he will give the weight of his influence towards having the contract taken up clause by clause before we pass this section, and I shall reserve my remarks on other points until that procedure is adopted.


William Barton Northrup: The clause under consideration is of course the main clause in the Bill because it ratifies and makes binding the contract which is the essence of this measure. It seems to me that more progress would have been made had the government seen fit to let this second clause stand until the different clauses in the contract were discussed. But as that course has not been taken, we are compelled, in considering this second clause, to discuss the entire contract. There are several objections to the contract. There are objections which go to the root and others which merely apply to details. We on this side object to any contract being made by the government for the construction of so important a work without first consulting the electorate. The proper course for the government would be to delay the passage of this measure until the people are consulted. If the people then choose to give a mandate to the government to make a contract, nothing would be left for us except to determine whether the government have made the best contract possible in order to carry out the will of the people as expressed at the polls. It has been said that the opposition are committed to an alternative scheme in the same sense that the government are committed to this scheme. We deny that. The opposition are in a different position. We are unable to crystallize into law the beneficent measures which we would be prepared to urge forward if we were in



106C0
office. When we go before the people with an alternative scheme, our scheme is one which has not become binding by Act of parliament but simply one to which we ash the approval of the electorate; but should the measure before the House_ pass through parliament, the government will appeal to the country on a scheme to which they have irrevocably committed the people. When one looks at the circumstances under which this contract was made, one cannot help being convinced that the principle of responsible government has been utterly ignored by this administration. While admitting "the great abilities of the right lion, the leader of the government, he has not that experience in railway matters which would lead people to entrust him with the task of negotiating a contract with one of the most astute railway managers on this continent. One would naturally expect that iu such a transaction, the right boil, gentleman would have consulted that particular colleague of his who, from his experience as head of the Railway Department, might be considered an expert in railway matters. He, however, did nothing of the kind. Nor did he even consult the hou. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who he said the other day, is a great authority on the transportation question, and who, we all know, is ready to assist the government at all times, on all occasions and under all circumstances. When we find the hon. gentle-mu n thus neglecting to take the most ordinary precautions, are we to blame if we are strongly inclined to believe that the probabilities are against the interest of the people being safeguarded by this contract ? With whom was the contract made ? We find that it was made with a number of gentlemen who are described as representing the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway-a company not yet incorporated. When the Bill to incorporate that company was before the Railway Committee, we were dealing with certain individuals.
I think the Minister of Justice will not contradict me when I say that, while we all recognize the difference between individuals and corporations, and that the moment the Grand Trunk Pacific Company is incorporated, the position of the individual corporators is merged in the company, yet, until the company is incorporated, the gentlemen who ask for the charter are the only oues we can deal with. We find that, this branch of the legislature incorporated certain gentlemen and tlieir associates as the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. Yet, when the Bill had passed to the Senate, we find that an agreement has been made by the government with some other gentlemen who profess to be the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. I think it is not out of place for the government to explain the extraordinary circumstance that this bargain as made with gentlemen who, so far as we know, have no power to bind the


William Barton Northrup: company they profess to bind. We find, among the names of those given as corporators in the Bill to incorporate that Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, names that are well known in Ontario ; Hon. George A. Cox, H. M. Pellatt, and E. R. Wood, all of Toronto ; Hon. William Gibson, of Beamsville ; J. R. Booth, of Ottawa ; the Honourable H. B. Rainville, Charles M. Hays, Frank W. Morse and William Wainwright, all of Montreal, and John Bell, of Belleville. X 'think every hou. member will bear me out iu saying that vast wealth is represented by the gentlemen whose names appear in this charter ; and I have always understood in the Railway Committee that it is considered desirable that men who are strong financially should be incorporators of a company, as giving a guarantee of the strength of the concern. But, in the bargain made by the government, we find the names of all these gentlemen omitted, except such as are officials of the Grand' Trunk Railway Company, and a bargain made with other people. We are not exceeding our rights, I think, if we ask the government for some explanation. Particularly when we find a gentlemen who was for years a colleague of the Prime Minister saying that the reason for the haste in making this bargain was that one of the men named as the original corporators of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company could not wait. I think we have a right to ask what the relationship of that gentleman Is to this arrangement with which, so far as the papers before us show he has no connection. The Finance Minister was good enough to tell us that he did not know any way by which money could be made out of this contract. I am not here to make charges that money is to be made improperly out of the contract; but, when an ex-minister states that the reason for haste is the extraordinary one that ' Cox can't wait,' we have a right to ask who Cox is, so far as this transaction is concerned, from which, so far as the contract shows, he has disappeared.
When we look at the contract, almost the first line suggests questions which should be answered. We find that this is an agreement bearing date the 29th day of July. Now, so voluminous a contract as this must have been the result of long negotiations between the government and the company. As we recollect the discussion in the Railway Committee over the incorporation of the company, we see that the circumstances ns we supposed them were entirely different from those which existed. I think we are justified in saying that the government hardly treated the members of the Railway Committee who are of their own party, as well as those who sit on this side of the House, with perfect fairness, when we were allowed to discuss week after week, what we considered a private charter, when the manager of the company and the leader

of the government were, at night, making the effective arrangements which we were only as a matter of courtesy, allowed to discuss by day. These are the points fairly to be considered in connection with so extraordinary a contract submitted to the House at so extraordinary a time. When a measure so important as this is brought before us after we have been in session four and a half months, during what, under ordinary circumstances would be the dying hours of a long session, surely, as representatives of the people, and as called upon to perform the important function of legislation for this country, we have a right to complain. These things all call upon us to regard the contract with the utmost care and to scrutinize it, I was almost going to say with suspicion, but I will not use so strong a term, in order that, if so extraordinary a contract must be made, at least in the interest of the country, it shall be made with the best terms possible.	4
When we look at the second clause of the contract providing the route of this proposed line of railway, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as it is called, we find that that route is wholly uncertain. Probably no other railway company in this country was ever given a charter with such a choice of routes as is given to this favoured company. It is called a transcontinental line, and that is the title of the Bill, ' An Act respecting the construction of a national transcontinental railway.' Yet, even in so small a matter as the name the Bill is deceptive, for this is not a transcontinental railway. A ' transcontinental ' railway, as ordinarily understood, is one running from ocean to ocean. Yet Moncton, which is one terminus of this line is not one of the seaports which our maritime province friends are prone to boast of. The line is no more a transcontinental line than if it ran from Quebec to Winnipeg. So we are put upon suspicion at once as to the bargain and the terms of the bargain. No member of the Railway Committee can have failed to learn why Moncton was chosen rather than some seaport. If the government had the courage of their convictions and were acting in a patriotic apart from a political sense, it would decide which Atlantic port should be the terminus of this transcontinental railway, we should have a proposal to run from ocean to ocean and could 'discuss fairly and intelligently the line projected. The line which stops at Moncton, as it is understood, will have an extension to some port on the Atlantic. We can understand, perhaps, that Halifax would support a Bill that would end the line at Moncton with the understanding that the true terminus would be at Halifax, while they would oppose it if the true terminus were St. John. So the converse is true, that St. John would not oppose the passage of such a Bill if they thought for a moment that the terminus would be in St. John instead of Halifax.
334i
So I repeat that if hon. gentlemen opposite wish to bring a measure before the people which they can submit on national grounds, apart from party grounds, they would be justified in making it a truly transcontinental line, and in naming the seaport be it Halifax, or St. John, or any other, which they propose to make the terminus of the eastern end of the line.
Then, when we come to the portion of the line running through New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia, we find an absolute uncertainty as to where it is to be located. Those of us who are members of the Railway Committee remember that the question of whether there should be a distance of 30 miles or 40 miles between, railways in the North-west, was threshed out in that committee this year. The government at one time was supposed to have the idea that 40* miles should be the minimum distance between the railways; later on, 30 miles was considered the proper distance. But here we have an Act incorporating the most important of all our railways, in which no limit whatever is stated. Therefore, the members of this House are called on to vote for a transcontinental line that, so far as we know, may not be two miles distant from the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern. Now, if we are to have a system of intelligent representation, if members of this House have any responsibilities or any power, surely it is unjust, as well to supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite as to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, to ask them to vote blindly in support of a line which, I venture to say, there is not a single man behind the government would vote for if it were located where it could be located under the terms of this Bill. When we come to the North-west Territories, probably even more than the other parts of the country, hon. gentlemen should see the necessity of having the route, at all events, approximately located. I can understand that hon. gentlemen opposite will say that it is absurd, in advance of the surveys, to insist on knowing within a few miles where the line is to be located. I agree that it would be absurd and unfair if we were to assume that the railway is to be located without surveys. At the same time, we have a right to ask for an approximate intimation of the locality where the road will be placed. We ought to be told, within 100 miles of it, we ought to have some general idea as to the part of the country this railroad is to traverse. The matter will come up later on on another clause, but how can we vote intelligently to give this grant to assist the railway, when we do not know where it is to be located ? If you located that road within a few miles of the Canadian Northern or the Canadian Pacific Railway, there is no hon. gentleman who would be willing to give the assistance that is

promised by tbis Bill. At the same time, if the road is to be located in parts of the country that require to be developed, then all the members of the House might be willing to give a degree of assistance that, under other circumstances, they would be justified in refusing to give.
Now, if It were thoroughly understood that for ail time to come we never would require another transcontinental line, then perhaps this question would not be so important. But I am sure we all recognize that this is a growing country, we recognize the possibility that other lines may be required, and that it may not be long before other lines are required. That being the case, I think we should know now where this line is to be located, because it is conceivable that if the principle were laid down that the three transcontinental lines now under way, including this one, were to be all that ever could* be built, then a( certain fixed route might be justifiable for this one. If lion, members had more confidence in this country, and thought that in a short time four or five transcontinental lines might be required, then a route that might be a proper route for it, if there were to be but three, might be very objectionable if there were to be four or five. That consideration is another reason why we should know where this road is to be located.
Tiie next clause deciding the route that requires comment, is clause 4. As to that,
I would only say that again we on this side of the House are unable to vote with that intelligence that we should be able to exercise as to the amount of consideration that should be given, when we do not know how much will be considered the mountain section and how much the prairie section. No one who has been through the Rocky mountains, taking the present Canadian Pacific road, which, we are informed, passes through a very much higher and therefore a more difficult and expensive pass than the projected road-no one can have gone through the mountain region of the Canadian Pacific Railway without recognizing that, while there are portions of that route which must have required an extraordinary expenditure to construct. there are many miles of it that would be very little more expensive than the construction on the prairie. We know that the road-bed has been located along the side of rivers where, in days gone by, the river had washed away the mountain until a practicable bed had been made by nature. Now, if proper surveys had been made, if we knew the route through the mountains, if we knew how high the elevation would be, if we knew how steep .the grade would be, if we knew how expensive the construction would be, and how much of the construction would be expensive and how much would be cheap, then we would be able to vote more intelligently on the


William Barton Northrup: amount of assistance to be given. But when we are wholly in the dark as to thut, we are hardly discharging our duties as representatives of our constituents if we vote the amount asked for as assistance to this railway.
Then it is provided that this railway shall be built in two divisions, the eastern division to be built by the government and the western division to be built by the company. Now, Sir, I can quite understand one man being opposed to government ownership and another man being in favour of government ownership. We have some countries favouring government ownership and others opposed to it; but I venture to think that lion, gentlemen will go far afield before they will find any country which has adopted such a hybrid system as is proposed by this particular project. It seems to me, after studying the contract, that every drawback, every objection that could be urged against either the system of government ownership or of private ownership, will be found to exist to the detriment of the public in connection with this particular contract. Take this clause 5, to which I refer, the clause which defines the part that shall be constructed by the government. We find that it provides :
The eastern division shall be constructed by, and at the expense of, the government, upon such location and according to such plans and specifications as it shall determine, having due regard to directness, easy gradients and favourable curves.
Now, if the government had made complete and exhaustive surveys so that they could come to this House and give us a definite idea as to the length of the road, as to the gradients and curves, the difficulties that have to be faced, then we would know whether it was desirable to authorize Hie government to construct the road. T am sure there is not an lion, gentleman opposite but will admit that it is possible there may be such difficulties in the way of the construction of tbis eastern division between Moncton and Winnipeg that it would be madness on the part of the government to undertake it. I am not prepared to-day to say there are such difficulties because I take it for granted that we have not sufficient information to speak with certainty as to the possibility of that country as to railway construction. But when we are ratifying this contract, when we authorize and empower, and, you may say, instruct the government to construct somt 1,800 miles of railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, we are assuming a great deal when we, as it were, go it blind, and instruct the government to assume the construction of that road without knowing anything whatever of the character of the country through which 'it is to pass. This, at least, we ail know, that whatever the difficulties of tlie construction of that route may be. the eastern division is to be the expensive
10C65

division ; the prairie division is to be the cheap and profitable division. Then when we find the government deliberately undertaking to construct the expensive division, and after constructing, to hand it over to the company for, as I think I can say, a wholly unfixed and uncertain rental, I think we are justified in opposing the construction of such a' road. The government in drawing the contract 'have made a certain provision in clause 7, and I confess from reading it that I am unable to determine what the object of the government was in doing so. In clause 7 the government have provided that:
In order to insure, for the protection of the company as lessees of the eastern division of the said railway, the economical construction thereof in such a manner that it can be operated to the best advantage, it is hereby agreed that the specifications for the construction of the eastern division shall be submitted to, and approved of, by the company before the commencement of the work.
It goes on to provide that the work is to be done in accordance with the specifications. When we come to construct the western division there is a similar proviso that the specifications are to be approved by the government's engineer before the construction is proceeded with. On the face of it the clause seems very reasonable, very fair and very effective, but whether or not it will be effective, of course, must depend on what object the government had in placing it in the contract. If the intention of the government was to secure a cheap and honest construction of the road, if the intention was to secure to the company that on the eastern part on which they are to pay a rental there shall be cheap and' honest construction, I have no hesitation in saying that the clause absolutely fails of the intent that the government had in view. If the government wishes to control the expenditure on the western division on the ground that the government has guaranteed three-quarters of the expense and is therefore interested in keeping down the expenditure as much as possible, practically no assistance whatever would be given to the government by allowing their engineer to supervise the specifications. It is to be assumed that the government on their end of the road will attempt to build a good road witli as low grades and as good curves ns possible and the same assumption is to be made for the company in building their end of the line. Therefore, as far as the specifications are concerned, their supervision will he of no practical benefit to the government on the one hand or to the company on the other. I would suggest that if we wish to control the construction of these different sections of the road in the interests of the company and of the government, respectively, it is the tenders and the contracts to which we should give our attention, as they are the means by which the
expenditure is made. It is not necessary to charge that money will he spent dishonestly, but inasmuch as the government by their very provision made the assumption, that it is in the public interest that the expenditure should be supervised, and inasmuch as they have assumed that the company has the right to supervise any expenditure, on the other hand, surely I am justified in asking tlie government to make that an effective instead of a nominal clause, so that not merely the specifications but the plans, tenders and contracts shall be confirmed and ratified by either party to this bargain. I think in view of some of the loose clauses to which I will refer later, that it is particularly necessary that there should be such a provision as this. I am sure that hon. gentlemen opposite who are prepared to vote for this Bill will do so with a lighter heart and defend their course more successfully before their constituents if they show that they have done everything in their power to secure as economical and effective a construction of the road as possible. The eighth clause provides that :
The construction of the said eastern division shall be commenced so soon as the government has made the surveys and plans and determined upon the location thereof, and shall be completed with all reasonable despatch.
Different language is used in regard to t lie construction of the western division. The tenth clause provides that:
The work of locating and constructing the said western division shall be commenced forthwith after the ratification of this agreement by the parliament of Canada.
Nothing has been laid before the House and nothing has been said to lead us to understand that surveys of the western division had been completed when this Bill was laid before parliament, so that we have tlie company and the government standing in the same position in that neither of them has had surveys made, hut the character of the country through which the company's road is to be constructed is so much easier for the purpose of constructing a road than that through which the government's road is to he built, that the company can afford to undertake forthwith after this agreement is passed, to go on with the work, while the government, despite all the promises they made in this House, despite the rosy pictures it has drawn of the fertile lands in the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec, are careful to provide that when the surveys and plans are determined upon and the location fixed, the work shall proceed with all reasonable despatch. This naturally strikes us as a clause calling for scrutiny. We find in the Bill, section- 21, that:
The Governor in Council shall have the power at any time to suspend the progress of the work upon the said eastern division until the then next session of parliament.

Which shows that the government was not certain itself and that the government was not prepared to pledge its reputation and existence on its ability to go on and complete this road. It is not to be supposed that these clauses were inserted in the Bill for the mere pleasure of inserting them. Some meaning must be attached to such a clause as this, and the only meaning that can be attached to it is that there was a lurking fear in the heart of the lion. Minister of Justice that peradventure lie might not be able to complete this road, and as a shrewd lawyer he has provided that if the government could not construct the line they could stop proceedings until the next session of parliament. Suppose that the fear proved not to be unfounded, suppose it was impossible to construct the road and that clause 21 of the Bill was invoked, in what position would the country be ? We have the government agreeing that as soon as the plans and location are determined upon they shall go ahead and complete the road with all possible despatch. Clause 21 is a clause that would hardly be invoked until they had located their line. If, in the meantime, the government had not located the line, I think it is perfectly clear that the Grand Trunk Pacific would have at least as strong a moral claim-there could not be a legal claim-as Mackenzie & Mann had in connection with the Yukon.Railway. That, perhaps, should have taught us a lesson. We found in that case, that, where there was no legal liability, because no lawyer in this House would contend that there was a shadow of liability on the part of this country to Mackenzie & Mann for the work they had done on the Yukon Railway, because, it was said, they had gone on relying on the signature of a minister, this country should pay them damages, and the country did pay them damages to the extent of $300,000. With that precedent in view- and I am not contending that this company would have a legal claim or that it could bring an action for damages and compel the country to pay-is it not quite clear that there will be a much stronger claim equitably and morally for damages on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company than in that case ? If the government are not certain that they can find a route, if they say they are not certain by providing in their Bill that if they cannot go ahead they can suspend the work, they should make it clear, and inasmuch as they do not know anything about the country or about the route, and inasmuch as the Grand Trunk Railway Company do not know anything about them, if the government found itself unable to complete the work the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should understand that they could not hold the country liable for damages. If a claim were presented by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for damages for the nonconstruction of the line from Winnipeg to


William Barton Northrup: Moncton, we, on this side of the House, might go into the box and contend that the damages to which they were entitled would be absolutely nothing, inasmuch as we had very little respect for the prospects of the road which it is proposed to construct between Winnipeg and Moncton, but if such a claim were presented, surely the utterances of lion, gentlemen opposite would rise up against them, because we find from the right hon. leader of the government down to the humblest member of the party that they have been vieing with one another in extolling the marvellous beauties of its unrivalled scenery and the great wealth of its resources. It is difficult to say what damages might be given to the Grand Trunk Company if, for a paltry line the Yukon, $350,000 were paid by the people of this country only a few years ago.
Clause 11 can certainly do no harm as to the parties to the contract, but it may well be said that it was put in in order to induce the people of this country to think they knew exactly what they were to obtain through the construction of this new western division.
The company shall lay out, construct and equip the said western division of the said railway to a standard not inferior to the main line of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada between Montreal and Toronto, so far as may be practicable in the case of a newly constructed line of railway, hut this section shall not be held to oblige the company to construct a double track railway.
That is to say as far as possible with a railway running across the prairie and through the mountains, this line is to be equal to the standard of the Grand Trunk Railway line between Montreal and Toronto, one of the finest on the continent. Every one familiar with railway matters knows that during the first ten years of the operation of a railway, no matter how carefully It may have been constructed, there is nearly as much expense in improving the road as the original cost of construction aud that being the case I venture to say that lion, gentlemen opposite are giving the people a gold brick when they put in sucli a clause ns this. I would ask careful attention to what has been said as to the possibility of clause 17 being interpreted to mean that contractors will not be obliged to pay duty on materia] and supplies brought in for the construction of this road. This is of course an arguable point but assuming for the moment that the hon. junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) was right in his interpretation of that clause then a blow has been struck at our manufacturers. I venture to say that there is uo manufacturer in this country who would not protest, not merely against the financial loss involved in this but at the injustice-one might almost call it the reckless cruelty-with which the manufacturers have been struck. The government have agreed to build a road for the company. At the time they agreed to con-

struct that road the law of the land was that articles imported by or for the use of the government, or any department thereof, come in free under section 450 of the tariff. That being the case, the government being bound to build the road, is it not perfectly clear that the government would not pay any duties on the materials imported. I am inclined to think that even without that clause, the company could not be held to pay three per cent on the amount of duties imported by the contractor to build the road. The contract provides that the company shall pay three per cent on the cost of construction. But what is the cost of construction ? If the contractor imports materials and pays the duties, who gets these duties 7 They go into the treasury, so that the company could justly say :	Wliile it is
true the contractor paid the duties, he paid them to you, and consequently the actual cost to you, the amount which you are out of pocket, is the price paid for these materials without the addition of the duties.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: But does not the hon. gentleman see that the government is interested in having the contractor make the purchases, because then the government will get the duty and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will pay 3 per cent on the amount ' of duty ?


William Barton Northrup: I am not discussing what is the interest of the government, but its rights. I am discussing whether the government could oblige the company to pay 3 per cent on the amount of duty. According to the clause 15, the expression ' cost of construction ' shall include all the cost of the materials. That means all the cost of the material to the government. But you cannot say that the duty collected adds to the cost of the material to the government, because that duty goes into the treasury. Here is another clause concerning which there is difference of opinion. It is clause 22, which provides :
The company shall equip both divisions of the said line of railway with modern and complete rolling stock to the value of at least $20,000,000, of which not less than $5,000,000 worth shall be supplied to the eastern division.
What is the meaning of the word ' equipment ' ? According to the Minister of Justice, the intention of the government was that this company should, as a guarantee for the maintenance and operation of the road, put this amount of rolling stock into it, owned by the company itself. But what is the meaning of the word ' equip ' 7 I do not find any definition in the legal lexicon, and in the ordinary dictionary I find nothing which involves purchase. A simple illustration will show this. The Minister of the Interior has a most beautiful yacht. Suppose he leased it for the summer, and bound himself to equip it with furniture, iSrc., could it be contended that he had not complied with the lease because he had
rented the articles with which it was equipped 7 Even if the things had been stolen, the yacht would have been equipped. So that the word ' equipped ' in that Act does not, as a matter of law, imply purchase. You would have to go to the other clauses to see if anything in them would give us that meaning. But there is no clause in the contract that goes further in that respect than clause 22. If there were no such instrument known in law as a mortgage of leasehold, I would think there was a great deal in the contention of the Minister of Justice. But the moment we admit that a leasehold property can be mortgaged as well as a freehold-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If the hon. gentleman will permit me-this question of a mortgage of a leasehold conveys a somewhat indefinite idea. Would he say that the mortgage of a leasehold would convey a first charge upon the property 7


William Barton Northrup: It would convey a first charge on the interest of the lessee.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But I hope the hon. gentleman will not beg the question. Would it convey a first charge upon the property 7


William Barton Northrup: I do not wish to fence. Of course, a mortgage given by the lessee could not affect the freehold in the slightest degree, but would only affect the leasehold interest. But under section 35 this mortgage is to be ' a first charge upon the railway, undertaking, equipment and property, tolls, rights and the franchises of the company.' Now, the leasehold property of the company is as much property and as truly mortgageable as freehold property. Of course, the value of leasehold property would be different from that of freehold property.


Mr. FOWLER.: A leasehold property for ninety-nine years would be practically a freehold.


William Barton Northrup: For the purposes of the value, of course it would be. Take the case of a railway equipment. I do not know the life of a car, but I suppose it would not be more than twenty years.


John William Bell: About twenty years.


William Barton Northrup: If it were twenty years then a twenty-one years' lease would be equivalent to a freehold.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But would
a mortgage on that be a first charge against the owner of a car 7


William Barton Northrup: I do not wish the Minister of Justice to infer that I said that, for it would be a preposterous thing to say that the lessee could mortgage the lessor's interest. But, if the owner of the cars gave a lease for twenty-one years and if the life of a car is only twenty years, then,

with the exception of the payment of the rent, the lessor has practically parted with his interest. I can understand that in case the government wished to take over this line, they might find it an advantage to have a mortgage on the leasehold interest in the cars, for it would save the enormous expense of buying cars at first hand for the whole railway. So I am not sure that it is not quite as good security, though it is different from security on freehold property. Suppose this company bought only $10,000 worth of cars. They would give you a mortgage on freehold up to $10,000, and the leasehold mortgage on the rest, and that would comply with the clause. I think that looking at clause 35 alone, we must conclude that ' equip ' means what that word would mean in ordinary English use and that according to the ordinary dictionary definition it does not necessarily involve the idea of purchase.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It might have received a judicial construction.


William Barton Northrup: Of course, but in that case, we would want to know the text and all about the document in which it was construed. But when we turn to section 14, we see that the matter is beyond peradven-ture. ' Working expenses ' is a very important factor. It affects the whole eastern division for a number of years. The company defines 'working expenses' most minutely. It includes ' all expenses of maintenance of the said division, and of the stations,' and so on, or in respect of the hire of rolling stock let to the company as part of the equipment of the said eastern division. We have had ' equip ' and ' equipment ' used with regard to the twenty millions; now it is provided that they have the right to take as part of the working expenses the money they have to pay for hire of rolling stock not merely that lent to the company, but specifically that let as part of the equipment of the eastern division. I submit that, in view of that clause, which, no doubt, was slipped in by the railway lawyers to make the matter beyond peradventure that there can be no [DOT]question as to the interpretation that would be given to the words. It might throw a little light on the improbability of one construction or the other, if we consider that, within the four corners of the contract, there is evidence that both parties were so satisfied that the eastern division would not pay, that the company are not called upon to pay interest for seven years and that for three years after that, the interest is to be added to the capital.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Keeess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, when you left the Chair at six o'clock a legal gentle-Mr. NORTHRUP.
man, the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), had been addressing the committee on the legal aspect of this agreement between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific. I therefore, will not deal with that aspect of the question, but I am again compelled to occupy the time of this House to enter upon the records of the House certain documents that have been laid on the Table. I am compelled to take up the time of the committee in order to accomplish that by reason of the fact that the gentlemen whose duty it is to keep a record of the debates of this House became exhausted by the long hours they were compelled to occupy their positions within the last twenty-four or twenty-six hours. When the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lauried) introduced this measure he stated to the House and to the country that he had mountains of information, and that he proposed to lay those mountains of information upon the Table. I have, Sir, with some difficulty, been able to corral that information, and I propose to place on record in as condensed a form as I can a table of the various books that are supposed to contain the information that the right hon. gentleman laid on the Table of the House:
		Year. Pages.		
Canadian Pacific Fleming	Railway	Report,	1877	431Canadian Pacific Fleming	Railway	Report,	1880	373Canadian Pacific Fleming	Railway	Report,	1878-9	142Canadian Pacific Fleming	Railway	Report,	1877	431Canadian Pacific Fleming, report the explorations to January, 1874	Railway Report, of progress on and surveys up	276
Canadian Pacific Railway maps and charts to accompany report on the explorations and surveys up
to January, 1874	
Canadian Pacific Railway Report of progress on the exploration and surveys up to January, 1874..	286
Second report of progress of exploration in the country between Lake St. John and James hay..	1901	78
Report of the Commissioner of - Crown Lands for the province of
Quebec for the twelve months
ending 30th June, 1895	 144
Quebec Harbour Commissioner's Report for the year 1902. (Under the Quebec Harbour Commissioner's Act) 1899, and the Pilotage
Act, chap. 54	 57
Sessional papers 16 to 22, House
of Commons	 1878	204
Sessional papers, 101 to 161, House
of Commons	 1885	435
Sessional papers, 6 to 7, House of
Commons	 1878	642
Reports of the proposed short line railway from Montreal to the maritime provinces with special reference to a combination line..	63

Year. Pages.		
Second report on the length of the country situated between Lake St. John and James bay by Henry O'Sullivan, P.S	1901	91General report of the Commissioner of Public Works of the province of Quebec	1891	114
Report of the Commissioners of Crown Lands of the province of Quebec for the twelve months expiring on the 30th June, 1895..
Total number of pages	 3,707
Less duplicate	 431
3,336
There Is a total number of pages of 3,767 less duplicates 431, making a net total of 3,336. This does not include the number of the pages of the maps. Now, my reason for stating the number of pages in this report is to show this House and the country that the opposition comprising some 80 members are called upon, if they do their duty to this House and the country, to peruse every page of these reports which I have here comprising 3,336 pages. We are expected by the right hou. gentleman who forces us to sit day and night in order that he may railroad this legislation through this House, to peruse this enormous volume of matter. Study as hard as we may and as faithfully as we may, we are unable to acquaint ourselves thoroughly with the contents of these reports because there are not reports sufficient to go around the SO members of the opposition in this House. There is only one report of each kind with one exception, and that being the ease, I would like to know how the right hon. gentleman expects us to peruse these reports in order that we may fit ourselves to discuss this question intelligently. I am sotry that the quotations that I gave this morning from those mountains of information which the right hon. gentleman laid on the Table of this House are not to be found on the-records of this House, and that I have to perform the painful duty, because it is a painful duty, of repeating the speech I made before tills day. It is painful to have to repeat largely what I stated this morning. Now the people of this country would naturally expect that this information is information dealing entirely with this great question of transportation and showing why this legislation was introduced in this House. That is the impression that the country would have of the information that has been laid on the Table of the House, but, Sir, when I point out to you that such is not the case, that we as members of this House are called upon to go over these sessional papers and these reports from page to page, and to pick out for ourselves the information dealing with this particular question, you will understand the difficulties with which we have to contend. It has been stated that when the right hon. gentleman was
dealing with these Grand Trunk promoters, or with the gentlemen connected with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) was not consulted. But, I have another serious charge to make against the right hon. gentleman. He has not only ignored the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, but he has ignored the Railway Department of this government. Had he consulted the Railway Department of this government, had he instructed the Railway Department to carefully peruse these documents, to take from them all matters pertaining to this legislation and lay the information thus secured on the Table of the House, hon. gentlemen on this side of the House might have had it within their power within a reasonable period of time to enlighten themselves in order that they might do their duty to this House and the country by assisting in perfecting this class of legislation. But, instead of that he entirely ignores the Department of Railways and Canals. He undertakes to do this himself. He undertakes to get some person to assist him, and I am inclined to believe that instead of consulting the Department of Railways and Canals, he has consulted a gentleman' whom he and his party consulted several years ago when they were ready to turn this country over to the United States. I need not mention the name of that gentleman, but I have been informed that this is the gentleman from whom the right hon. gentleman has got assistance.


Mr. GOURLEY.: How did you get the information out of these numerous books that is represented by the government to be contained in them ? I have been searching through them, but I have not been able to get that information.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will say in reply to the hon. gentleman that after hours and hours of faithful perusal, I have been able to pick out some of the information that is in these books, and I find in the records placed on the Table of this House instructions that they themselves, as a government, are violating in order to promote this legislation. Now, I want the people of this country to know that this is a class of information that we have to thumb over from time to time. Here is a report dealing with the great fishery question of Canada. The title is ' Sessional Papers from 101 to 161, House of Commons, 1885,' dealing with the fishery question between Canada and the United States. I quoted last night information in this report, dealing with the matter of extraditing criminals. This, Sir, was laid on the Table of this House as containing information respecting the great railway problem of this country. This is the kind of information that is taken from that ' mountain of information ' that was laid on the Table of the House by the leader of the

government. Now, I want to know from the people of this country, I want to know from the government, how eighty men comprising the opposition are to peruse 3,300 odd pages of this class of literature, mixed up, as it is, with numerous other matters, and then discuss this question intelligently ? Then we have another report here.' This is ' Sessional Papers 1G to 22, House of Commons, 1878.' I want to point out that in these books are reports that were laid before this House twenty years ago, some longer than that. I find in this one .a ' Statement of the cases in which, since last return, additions have been made to the number of years of service of persons employed in the civil service who have been superannuated.' This is only one of a number. I can take page after page and find the same class of literature in this report. And yet we are expected to thumb this over in order to pick out information in connection with the -transportation question. I have another one of 642 pages,
' Sessional Papers, House of Commons, 1867 to 1878.' That is a memorable year. Hon. gentlemen opposite have reason to remember that year, especially the 17tli of September. They forget that it was by just such conduct as this that they were turned out of power by a majority of the electors on the 17th of September, 1878, and if I am not mistaken, unless they -mend their ways, the same thing will occur again. It may not be on the 17th day of September, but it will be on whatever day they choose to appeal to the people of this country. Now, let me draw your attention to this mammoth report, * Sessional Papers 6 to 7, House of Commons, 1878.' They are particularly partial to this year, for what reason, I do not know. ' Tariff of all payments for commissions on sale of postage stamps by stamp vendors in Ontario, made within the year ending 30th of June, 1877.'. I do not know whether the Postmaster General had anything to do with laying this class of information on the Table, but I am inclined to give him credit for having too much sense to do so. t do not think the hon. gentleman would take advantage of the opposition in that manner. Now, here is another report, the only sensible looking report I have been able to select, and that is a report by Mr. Sandford Fleming on the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1878 and 1879. They have advanced one year. Now, in this report there is some very interesting reading. On page 5 I find a report by the engineer-in-chief on the Canadian Pacific Railway, addressed to the Hon. the Minister of Public Works of Canada. ' Office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Ottawa, April 5, 1879. The Hon. Sir Charles Tupper, C.B., Minister of Public Works.' Now, in this report I have done my best to find some information that would guide me in intelligently discussing this important question now before the House. As I said
in the beginning of my remarks, it is not my intention to deal with the legal aspect of the question, because! am not a lawyer ; therefore, I have to apply myself to a more practical part of this question, and to that end X have endeavoured to study the engineer's report respecting his views on the transportation question. I find on page 11 of this report that he starts out in this way : In my humble judgment it will prove to be a grave mistake if railway companies receive the necessary powers to establish lines as they have been constructed in other parts of Canada ; without forecast ; without due consideration of the actual requirements of the country as a whole without regard to a systematic arrangement, without, in any way, recognizing the principle that, in whatever respect it be viewed, a railway whatever its length or position. should be considered as an integral portion of a whole system.
In that short paragraph we find that caution and greater care should be taken in locating a railway. Now, let us go_ back and refer to the speech of the late Minister of Railways. I have a few quotations here which I think I am justified in laying before this committee, especially in view of the statement of the chief engineer for Canada. I find the ex-Minister of Railways made this statement :
The step which I have taken, Sir, can only be justified in respect of my duty to my constituents. of my duty to the party, of my duty to this House and of my duty to the country upon the clearest and plainest and strongest grounds.
Let us see what some of those strong grounds were. He goes on to say :
The only cause which led me to take that regrettable step is because I have been unable to justify to my mind, to my own conscience and to my own duty to my people in support of the proposal -which the government have decided upon lfiaking to this House and asking legislation to pass with respect to the project known as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
Again, I find him saying on the following page :
But I am not In favour

And mark you just what I have read from the engineer's report, and compare it with what the ex-minister says.
But I am not in favour of impetuously rushing into the construction of a transcontinental line from Quebec, through an unknown country to Winnipeg and the west, until we know something about It-until we have the fullest information about it. The project is one of very great magnitude, and should be dealt with only after the maturest deliberation.
And one of the reasons why the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) resigned was because the recommendations hr the report of the chief engineer of railways were not carlred out. The ex-minister said :
I think I might justly complain that so important a matter of policy, arising within tho sphere of my own department, should have been conducted and continued in this way behind my back and without my knowledge.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have already said that the right bon. gentleman not only omitted to consult his Minister of Railways and Canals, but he has laid on the Table reports that were hot secured from the Department of Railways and Canals, thereby ignoring the department altogether. The ex-minister continues :	.
I would require that the government should abandon its present Intention and in the meantime that parliament be asked for an amount to enable a thorough exploration of the country to be made, so that it might be possible to judge whether or not a suitable traffic producing route could be found through this district, and its cost and the character and conditions of the country through which it is to pass ascertained.
These are wise suggestions from the Minister of Railways and Canals, but they have not been adojited by the government. For years past the Liberal party have held up the Hon. Mr. Blair as the only expert Minister of Railways that the country has ever seen, and the only minister who ever brought tire Intercolonial Railway to a state of perfection. And yet, that expert minister was forced to resign his portfolio because the government persisted in forcing through this Indefensible scheme. The chief engineer of railways of the Dominion said this :
I refer more particularly to the province of Ontario. Here there has been no regard for any principle of practical economy.
Those of us who have lived in Ontario have known for years that there was never any regard to economy in that province :
I refer more particularly to the province of Ontario. Here there has oeen no regard for any principle of practical economy, by which a general railway system, as a whole, should bo mapped out.
The experience gained in Ontario, in this respect, establishes the necessity of avoiding, on an infinitely larger scale, the mistakes that have been unfortunately committed in that portion of Canada bordered by the lakes. No part of the public treasury should he expended In the construction of lines of railway in the North-west, conceived at hap-hazard, and suggested rather by individual and local consid -erations than by broad public policy.
If public money should not be so used, it In perfectly clear that parliament should not give authority to private companies to expend bor -rowed capital in an equally unwise manner.
The future railway system of the whole unoccupied territory will undoubtedly demand sooner or later, an expenditure of many hun [DOT] dreds of millions of dollars ; and from whatever sources the enormous capital may be obtained. it must be obvious to the least reflecting minds that it should be wisely expended, so that, as far as practicable, while the public interest is advanced, all possible loss to the Investor should be guarded against.
If the railways of Ontario had to he established de novo, a careful study of the requirements of that province would enable any intelligent engineer of ordinary experience to project a new system, which at one-half the cost would far better serve the public, would meet
every demand of trafflc, would more fully satisfy every expectation, and which would not resolve in this appointment and loss to those who have been induced to invest their means in that which has proved, to many, to he unpro [DOT] fitable undertakings.
The railways of Ontario have cost, according to official returns, nearly one hundred and eighty millions, of dollars. If they could havo been constructed for one-half the cost, tho other half of this enormous sum, $90,000,000 may be assumed to be a wholly unnecessary outlay. If a well considered and less costly system would have equally, met the wants of Ontario, the excessive expenditure can only bo considered as superfluous, and so much of it as remains permanently unremun-eratlve as hopelessly wasted. If public money, the public debt might have been so much the less or other interests might have been served and developed to the extent of the unwise expenditure. If private money, obtained from parties at a distance, on fair promises, or on prospects represented as encouraging, there is staring the investors in the face the deplorable and unimpugnable fact that much of it will be absoiutels-lost.
And so, I say, with respect to this project (lint has been submitted by the government, that, if out of the so-called mountains of information laid on the Table by the First Minister, we are unable to get information, which would justify this parliament to rush through, yes, to railroad through, a measure of this character, unwise and indefensible ns it is; if the information laid before us does not justify us in passing this measure I want to know from the government how they think they can justify their action should they appeal to the electors. Sir, the people of Canada will decide that in railroading a measure of this character through the House without affording the necessary information the government is derelict in its duty :
It is to he feared that the same policy extended to the North-west, will end in like con sequences, but on a ten-fold greater scale. The greatest possible care should therefore he taken to render such results impossible.
I conceived that the prudent course will be not to allow the passage of private railway Bills for Manitoba and the North-west, until a general railway scheme be deliberately and carefully matured.
I am sorry the First Minister is not herei because lie is the promoter of this Bill, anc! in justice to the country and -to parliament lie should be on the spot to give us information which these mountains of information of his do not unfold. The chief engineer says further :
I have felt it my duty, as far as practicable, on more than one occasion to draw attention to this extremely important consideration. In previous reports I have expressed the opinion that not simply one railway to connect the Atlantic and Pacific coast s will be required, but that hereafter, a vast breadth of country will call for the establishment of a complete and elaborate system of main and subsidiary lines. Will it not be the true policy, to meet this contingency and lay down a broad, general system which will satisfy public requirements.

It is not in fact an imperative duty to devise a scheme of railways and highways for the whole territory, which in the best possible manner will meet the wants of the future, with the least expenditure of capital in construction ? A system which, when established, can be cheaply and efficiently operated. I deem it proper to express the opinion which has firmly forced itself on my mind, that the government should control the location, not of the trunk lines only but of all lines.
And yet, when I asked the Minister of Justice the other night if, according to the recommendation of his chief engineer here, the government were going to control the lines upon which these railways are to be built, the Minister of Justice said that he was not here to answer such frivolous questions.
Then I say that if the government had carried out the recommendations of the exMinister of Railways and Canals they would have put an appropriation in the estimates, but they have not asked for a dollar to make exploration and surveys with a view to furnishing the House and the country with information as to the location of the line on which they are going to spend $100,000,000. They have not given that information and they are not justified in rushing this measure through this House until they have that information. On page 14 we have :
The subsidiary railway system should not be left to chance, or be given over to private control. All lines should be conceived in the Interest of the whole system and the whole country. A railway and road system of the entire habitable territory should be designed so as to meet, in the best possible manner, the future requirements of the country and its future occupants. Each line of communication should be in the right place and of the proper character: and whenever constructed, each link should be established so as to form a part, ultimately, of a general system.
Are we to wait until the Grand Trunk Railway comes down with their profiles and surveys ? Would that be in the best interests of this country ? It might be if the interest of the Grand Trunk is the first object. And I would ask if that is according to the wishes of the chief engineer, whose object was to pay some attention to the settlers of this country as well as to its future requirements ? The report continues :
It is, therefore, of the first importance that the government should control the location and construction of all lines, so as jealously to guard that the streams of traffic that will be created will not be diverted from Canadian channels.
This morning, when I put the question, the Minister of Justice said that that is what is being done, that the trade would not find American channels. I stand in my place and I challenge any member of the government to make that statement and allow it to go on the records of this House. I say that the very legislation which is now being passed through this House will con-Mr. INGRAM.
tribute to divert the trade of Canada to American instead of Canadian ports. I say it is very unfortunate that statement was not placed on the records so that at some future time whoever may have the honour of a seat in this House would be able to point back and say to the ministers or exministers as we will be then :	This is
what you said years ago when this great scheme was before the House, that the trade of Canada would not be diverted to American channels. They will not be in a position to say :	I foretold that the trade
of Canada would be diverted to American channels. Why would it be diverted V By reason of the difficulty of construction of the eastern section of this railway it cannot be constructed as soon as the western section, and of necessity this freight will find its way largely through American channels if, as my hon. friend beside me suggests, there will be any freight. The report goes on :
And at the same time to exact that no railway shall be established which shall not aid In the settlement and prosperity of the country; and that no line shall interfere with another, or encroach on the territory another line has been constructed to serve.
I asked this morning if it was not a fact that in the eastern section of this road they were, going to parallel the Intercolonial Railway, and I pointed to the district between LSvis and that corner of the state of Maine where the Intercolonial Railway runs, 130 miles, and the widest part of that stretch is only 22 miles. I pointed out that that would parallel the Inter-colonial Railway so closely that it would depreciate the value of the government railway and would not be in accordance with the recommendation contained in this report which the government placed before this House :
If the opportunity now presented of establishing a railway system on sound principles be allowed to pass without laying down a wise policy, it will not be difficult to predict the results. The evil effects of neglect will not end with this century. On the other hand, if the true interests of the country be consulted and the proper policy be adopted, Canada will enjoy the beneficial effects for all future time.
If the recommendation of this engineer had been carried out Canada would enjoy the beneficial results for all time to come. Then he says:
The policy followed in this matter will in no small degree determine the future of the vast territory of cultivable land which 'has recently come under the control of Canada, and it will affect, for good or for evil, millions of British subjects. There are two classes of men to he considered-the investors and the settler. Naturally we look to the mother country for some of its surplus capital to aid in establishing our great continental highways. Is it not incumbent on us, as far as we can, to make the investment of that capital safe and profitable ? By opening up this fertile territory we provide, on British soil, an outlet for the many who are crowded amid a redundant popu-
10682

lation. We find employment for those who suffer from enforced idleness, and we open up the prospect of prosperity to all who are willing to wait for the certain reward of patient toil, frugality and industry.
Let me dwell on this section a moment. Why did the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), thunder out in this House so that he could have been heard in Montreal, had the doors been open, that hon. gentlemen on this side were opposing a scheme that would provide employment for hundreds, yes, tens of thousands of labourers in this country in the construction of this railway. This is one of the things the hon. Minister of Customs stated when he charged members on this side with pursuing a policy that would not furnish employment to the labourers of this country, that was one of the strongest reasons why the government were bringing forward this question. I take it that we have a duty to perform here and our duty regardless of what particular interest it will serve is to guard faithfully the interests of the whole people, and of the whole country. It looks as if this government is going to spend money simply to provide employment for men on the line of railway, and yet they say that the men of the country all have work now, that the factories are working overtime and cannot supply orders, and that many of the factories are suffering from want of men.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: If we had the policy that my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) has advocated, free trade, our factories would not be employed to-day. I remember my hon. friend (Mr. Fraser) saying that although we did not have free trade we are going to bring that about an a snail would. It was to be a snail's pace, thank goodness for the sake of the people of this country that it is a snail's pace. It is by reason of the continuation of the policy of the Conservative party that our manufacturers are enjoying prosperity. The report goes on :
There will no longer be need (or such to turn to a foreign soil, however hospitable it may be. The one change necessary will be simply that of locality. To the struggling man of the old world, who has strength and courage, we can offer the means of making for himself a home. To all such we can offer land to till that will yield a generous reward to labour, but that land is far in the interior of the continent. It must first be made accessible and the means provided for carrying to market what the soil will produce. Moreover in laying down the avenues of traffic which the settlement of the land will necessitate, we should take every precaution to keep the country unburdened by a weight of debt which would bear heavily in any quarter. If, on the one hand, we feel called upon in the interests of the whole empire to open up the vast territory for the millions who are to occupy it, on the other hand, it Is elearlv our duty to follow the course which will accomplish this result in the most satisfactory manner. Accordingly I have respectfully to1 recommend that the necessary steps be taken to prepare a scheme of railways calculated to meet, in the most economical and efficient manner, the future requirements of the territory as far as they can now be foreseen.
Are the government taking that precaution to bring this result about ? If not, they have violated the rule laid down in the very report they have submitted to the House. On page 18 this engineer says :
I submitted the opinion that more than one line through Canada to the Pacific might ultimately be called for ; that as far as colonization of the vast central territory was concerned, it was of little consequence which was first constructed, hut that the line which could be most speedily established, and which would best subserve the general interests of the empire, was entitled to the preference.
I take it that we have a good transcontinental line, and am glad to know that it has helped to develop that western territory; He continues :
In my rport. of January 26, 1874, the subject was fully discussed, I then said
One of the questions which will undoubtedly force itself on public attention when the prairio regions begin to raise a surplus for exportation, will be the cheap transportation of pro ducts to the east. Looking to this view of the question, the importance of a location which will secure the lightest gradients in an eastern division is manifest.
That is what we on this side have been; contending for all along. The right lion, the First Minister has told us that the bon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) is the best expert railway man in this House. But that hon. gentleman did not rely on his own personal experience and ability as an expert, but gave us a statement by Mr. Scott, general manager of the Great Northern Railway. He quoted figures furnished him by Mr. Scott. As I have the honour and pleasure of representing a railway centre, I propose to give Mr. Scott's figures to the railway men in my constituency, and then will call on them to give their opinion regarding the bon. member for North Norfolk as an expert. I have no doubt that they will say : God help Canada if these are the figures of the most reliable expert' in the House of Commons. Then the engineer goes on to say :
The gradients and alignments of a railway have much to do with its capacity for business, and the cost of working it. It is well known that by attention to these features, in locating a line, it is quite possible, in some eases, to double the transporting capacity of a railway and very largely reduce the cost of conveying freight over it.	*
That is what I have been told by railway men and what I know myself, as a practical railway man. I have consulted one of the best railway engineers in this country, who has travelled over a large portion, of tliis territory, and he told me that it was simply impossible for the government to find gradients in the eastern portion of New

106S4
Brunswick such as those declared to be necessary by the hon. member for Nortbl Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He defied the gov-enment to select six of the most expert rails way engineers in this country or in the Untied Slates, who could find any such gra-, dients in that section. Then thm engineer goes on to say :
That portion of -the Canadian Pacific Railway between Red river and the navigable waters of Lake Superior, is precisely one of those cases where the utmost attention should be paid to its engineering features. The reduction of the cosit of transportation on this location to the lowest figure is a question which affects the future of the country, as upon it, to a large extent, depends tile settlement of the western prairies.
The more this portion of the railway can be made to convey cheaply the products of the soil to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, the more will the field be extended within which farming operations shall be carried on with profit on the fertile plains.
I think I have read sufficient to show that the recommendations of this engineer, who; has been quoted ever since this debate opened, have not been carried out by the; government. We are told that we have mountains of information, that the reports* are in the library, and we can consult them; Let me refer to page 2G of this report, which contains this explanatory note :
The whole territory is divided into sections, each section one degree of longitude in breadth by one degree of latitude in length

Does this engineer report that there its ample information and that the government; know all about this country ? Not at all He tells us :
-59-100, nothing reliable known ; 59-101, no thing reliable known ; 59-102, nothing reliable known ; 59-103, nothing reliable known ; 59-101, nothing reliable known; 59-105, nothing reliable known ; 59-106, nothing reliable known ; 59-107, nothing reliable known ; 59-108, nothing reliable known ; 59-109, nothing reliable known; 59-110, nothing reliable known. Thus 59 means tho space lying between the 59th and 60tli parallels of latitude while 100 refers to the space between the 100-th and the 101st meridian.
Yet we are told that we have mountains! of information about this country. Why have the government placed these reports on the Table ? Is It their intention, in order to put through this indefensible meaJ sure, to weary us out and prevent us from perusing these documents and showing the weakness of the whole scheme ?
Last night I took up in my arms these documents that I have been able, after some trouble, to corral, and I asked the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Chariton) whether he could, as a good Christian gentleman-and that is his reputation at all events -truthfully say that he had carefully pur-used these documents 7 What was his answer ? Has he perused them ? Of course not. I asked another gentleman on the other side of the House if he had perused Mr. INGRAM.
them, and he admitted that he had not.
1 asked the ministers of the Crown, and not one of them had mastered these documents. I challenge any hon. gentleman on that side to say that he has mastered the mountains of information which the right hon. Prime Minister said he was prepared to lay on the Table of this House. More than that, I challenge the ministers of the Crown to say that they have read these documents which they submit as justification for bringing down this legislation and putting it through, as I said before, not in reasonable but in unreasonable hours, with sittings of this House so long that they have exhausted the strength of those whose duty it is to record our debates, and exhausting also the strength of hon. members on tbis side who * are seeking under the greatest difficulties to perform their duties and make this legislation as perfect as possible.
When my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) said that this would be a proper meas.ure in the different provinces, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) to whom I always give great credit for astuteness, for when an hon. gentleman on this side makes a slip he is always one of the first to fry to take advantage of it, rose and said he was glad to hear a responsible member of the opposition making that admission, a gentleman who controlled a prominent newspaper in the great city of Toronto, and he warned that hon. gentleman that he would use that statement in the various provinces of the Dominion with a view of catching votes. Now, I want to consider whether this will be a vote catcher for the government, and whether by means of it the government will be able to hoodwink and humbug the people. In 1896, lion, gentlemen opposite humbugged tlie people, and so attained power. In 1900, they declared that they had not had a chance to carry out the pledges they had made, and asked for another chance. And the people trusted them again. But patience has ceased to be a virtue with the electors, and when the government appeals to them again they will find they are not to be humbugged by legislation of this kind. The practical minded farmer, the hard-headed business man, the common sense w'orking man of this country will not be blind to the fact that this legislation involves a very large expenditure, nor will they forget that they themselves as citizens m,ust contribute their share to that expenditure. Do you think that they will not weigh carefully the effect that this legislation will have upon the prosperity of the country ? I do not know the electors of the hon. Minister of Finance, but I am satisfied that among them are a majority of intelligent men who will not support the government in framing this legislation contrary to the opinion of the man in the'administration who was responsible for that policy on railway matters and who was most competent to judge as to that policy. When

I heard read in this House the letters of the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) that he had written to the Prime Minister, I waited with bated breath to hear the right hon. Prime Minister defend himself against the many accusations made by his late colleague. I thought he would attempt to give some reason for using such haste in preparing this scheme and for overlooking the head of the great railway department. But I found uo reason given which satisfied me that the government had done right in these matters. I find here some very strong statements made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. I refer you to page 8840 of ' Hansard,' being the report of August lltli, 1903. The exMinister of Railways and Canals said :
But, Sir, I maintain that in respect to this duplication of the Intercolonial Railway by the extension from Quebec to Moncton, there is no necessity, there is no reason, there is no justification. there is no object good, bad or indifferent to be attained.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: Yes ; it is absolutely useless. It is a total and absolute waste of the public money. It is not only a destruction of the Intercolonial Railway, but it is a sheer unjustifiable squandering of the public money.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
And as hon. members said ' Hear, hear,' when the hon. ex-minister was speaking, so the people of this country will say when this matter is brought to their attention.


Andrew George Blair: I cannot speak less strongly because I feel strongly with regard to this, t feel strongly because I can realize as no gentleman in this House can realize the efforts which have been made, and the successful efforts which have been made during the past few years to improve the character of that railway, to give it a better standing and a better foothold, and to promote its earning capacity as it never had been promoted before.


An hon. MEMBER.: What do the Conservatives say to that ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: You fellows are trying to kill It.
That is perfectly true-hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to kill the Intercolonlnal which the ex-Minister of Railways showed very clearly will be that result of their policy.


Andrew George Blair: We have expended upon that railway $70,000,000 of money, and now the government proposes to spend $15,000,000 more in order to make our expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway less valuable, and less effective. and in order to injure materially the people who live along that line.
That is the statement of the member of the government best qualified to speak as how it will affect the Intercolonial Railway. If the government had never taken up this portion of the railway scheme it would have been better for the people. If they had extended the government railway to the great lakes they would have done something
in the interest of the country instead of causing us to lose the value of a line of railway upon which the people have expended about $70,000,000. The influences which drive them to this course are political influences. But for that, they would never have proposed this scheme to the House and to the country. I say the First Minister and his colleagues should have risen above party feelings, they should have been actuated by a higher motive than party advantage-if that was their motive, and they should have had solely in view the best interests of the people of this country.
Now, Sir, hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have exhausted themselves over the long hours the government have forced us to sit here, we have taxed our strength to the utmost in trying to glean whatever information we could discover out of these reports ; yet, notwithstanding our exhaustion In trying to perform our duties, we are still urged by the First Minister to continue in session in order to satisfy his ideas of public duty. Sir, during my experience in this House I have been charitable enough to think and to say of the right hon. gentleman that I believed he had a spirit of fairness in him, but I am now in grave doubt whether the right hon. gentleman retains that spirit. He stated at the opening of this sesion that the government proposed to deal with this great transportation question. Well, they allowed months and months to elapse before introducing this important legislation, and now, at this late date, we are called upon to study it in the records that have been laid on the Table by the government, and to spend hours and hours in that work, in order that we may discuss this question intelligently. We are called upon to railroad this legislation through the House by the right hon. gentleman himself. I ask the right hon. gentleman, Does he think we are in a position to study carefully these ' mountains of information ' that he has laid on the Table of the House ? Does he consider that it is within the physical power of man to study carefully 3,300 odd pages of these mountains of information ? I for one protest against this conduct on the part of the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. It is unlike the right hon. gentleman to force a measure of this kind through parliament in this fashion. I had a higher regard for him than to suppose that he would be the leader in a movement of this character. After hon. gentlemen have been obliged to sit here day after day from eleven o'clock in the morning until after midnight, we are required to discuss, witli such information as he has placed before us, a question involving an expenditure of between one and two hundred million dollars. Well, we shall try and do onr duty as best we can, remembering that we shall appear before another tribunal where we shall get the justice which the right hon. gentleman

refuses to accord to us. We will appeal to the great electorate of this country, and I am satisfied when we make that appeal that our course will be abundantly justified, and that his will be condemned.


Mr. HENDERSON.: We have been repeatedly told during this prolonged discussion that ' mountains of information ' had been laid on the Table, from which we could learn all about the country through which this new transcontinental railway was to pass, all about the rates of transportation, in fact everything in connection with it; but not until to-night have I been able to put my eyes upon these mountains of information. The right hon. gentleman intimated, when he introduced this Bill, that these mountains of information were forthcoming and would be laid on the Table. I think, as has been so well stated by my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), that it is an utter impossibility for hon. members on both sides of the House to have access to all these volumes during the limited time that is to be accorded to us for the discussion of this question. Nearly 200 members, outside of the cabinet, are expected to make themselves conversant with this whole subject. I do not know the number of volumes comprising these mountains of information, but I apprehend that there are not more than twelve or fifteen at most, and only one of these volumes, I am told, is duplicated. Therefore, I say it is an utter impossibility for Iron, members to have access to the information which the First Minister laid upon the Table and asked us to peruse, in order to make ourselves acquainted with his scheme. These mountains of information are found to contain some 3.330 pages, but they do not seem to contain all the information which was promised us. When the First Minister introduced his Bill he made a reference to other sources of information which have not been laid upon the Table of this House, which, I dare say, might be found in the library. But I assume that possibly not more than one or two volumes at most are to be found there. Consequently, it will be utterly impossible for all the members to have access to them. For example, we find before us, in the mountains of information placed upon the Table, no account of the discovery of the continent of America by Columbus, which has been referred to in the course of this debate ; we find no report of the discoveries of Champlain. We have no volume here referring to the travels of La Salle across the continent of America, which we were told about, nor yet the explorations of Alexander Mackenzie, whose name is perpetuated in the North-west Territories by the Mackenzie river. Then, later down we have the explorations of Butler, referred to by the right hon. First Minister. I do not understand that any of these volumes have been placed within the reach of hon. members. However, it does seem to me that, Mr. INGRAM.
notwithstanding the voluminous character of this information, as far as hon. gentlemen on your right are concerned, the information has been totally exhausted. For days we have not heard from any hon. gentlemen on your right, Mr. Chairman, Apparently, they think that all that can be said in support of this scheme has been said by them. Apparently, - they have not another word, not another argument to advance in support of the transcontinental railway which we are now considering. Now, I say that if the right hon. gentleman had intended to be fair, he should have had all this information placed before us, not only placed before us on the 30th of July, but placed before us at a much earlier date, in order that we might be thoroughly prepared to discuss such an important question. But the right hon. gentleman yesterday made a very important statement. He announced to the House that when this Bill was passed he would be able to give us new information. He made this statement :
But we have information which will suffice to enable us to publish in a few days a pamphlet based upon official reports and upon nothing else in which it will be shown that for two-thirds or three-fourths of the distance between Quebec and the west the country is a plateau as level as the valley of tie St. Lawrence from Toronto to Montreal. So, X say, we have there the character of road that we desire to have. When we have done that we will have relieved the farmers of the North-west to a large extent.
What signifies it to us that the right hon. gentleman should have laid away in some place of concealment the information which he says he has and which will suffice to justify parliament in the action which he proposes it should take-I say what does it benefit us and what does it benefit the country if he has information that is going to be retained by him and not given to the House and to the people until after the Bill which we are now considering has become law ? Possibly we may have a very different view of the information when we have an opportunity of perusing it. Possibly we may not consider it sufficient, as the right hon. gentleman says it will be. But we hope and trust, that, at any rate, even at this late hour, we will get some information from this pamphlet which will justify to some extent the action that the government have taken. It has been said that this pamphlet was downstairs somewhere in the basement of this building. Well, I confess I was there a few days ago, and I did notice a large pile of pamphlets. I was told there was about 100,000 of them ready for distribution ; practically, they are being sent out now to the friends of the government, I presume, for the purpose of giving information. But, all that information we have. That pamphlet contains practically nothing more than the speech of the right hon. gentleman delivered on the 30th of July. Now,

10C90
as to the mountains of information, the sufficient information which he has promised the people of this country to justify the action which he has taken, I trust there is something better, that there is something that will go farther to justify the right hon. gentleman in the action which he has taken than that which is contained in the speech delivered by him on that day. Now, let me say, because this is a question of very great moment, that, to my mind, there are two sides to this question. There is the' humorous side, and there is the serious side. Hon. gentlemen to your right, Mr. Chairman, have dealt with the humorous side, but we, on this side, the custodians of the people's interests and the people's rights, independently of political preferment, are endeavouring to deal with this question upon its serious side. The humorous side of the question was introduced with the mountains of information which almost became a laugh throughout the whole country. The humorous side was exhibited when the Grand Trunk Railway Company made application for a charter for a railway to run from North Bay to Winnipeg, and when, in a short time they were induced to change the route of the railway and run the railway, not from Winnipeg to North Bay, but from Winnipeg to Moncton, without any apparent reason other than for political motives. The humorous side of the question was exhibited in the levity w.tli which the right hon. gentl?mau proclaimel to this country that this road would cost the people $13,000,000 and not a dollar more. The humorous side of this question was again shown when in a very careful calculation the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) showed that it would cost $13,725,000 and nothing more. Then, the right lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) had to be humorous also, and he exhibited his humour, might I say his levity, or lack of seriousness in dealing with this question, when he proclaimed that this road could be constructed at a cost to the people of $14,000,000, and not a dollar more. Then, the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock)-in a vein of humour followed up the right hon. gentleman, and declared that not a dollar above $13,000,000 will be required to be paid out for the construction of this long line of railway from Moncton to Winnipeg. To my mind this is not treating the question as seriously as it ought to be treated. It is treating it too much in the humorous way to which I have referred. The hon. Minister of Finance endeavoured to make it more humorous, more frivolous, by declaring that by a system of annuities, by employing an actuary and having a calculation made and by obtaining the services of some insurance company he was going to be able to build this railway for about $8,500,000. I believe that since then he is afraid to venture upon that plan, and he 335
Is going to stick to the right hon. First Minister's plan of spending $13,000,000, instead of $8,500,000. It may be as I had occasion to remark a few days ago, that the hon. Minister of Finance has been taking lessons out of the book published by the Premier of the province of Ontario who first adopted the annuity plan for the purpose of constructing railways.
See the harmony-the parliament of Canada taking a leaf out of the book of the province of Ontario. They do not go so far as the Hon. G. W. Ross, because he could build railways without costing the country one dollar. He sold forty-year annuities and then refus 'd to call tha liability a debt, Because it was not presently payable. However, we do not know what our Finance Minister may do before he gets through with this gigantic scheme. So much for the humorous side of the question, and even though the government may view it in this light manner, the great electorate of Canada will not treat it in the same light hearted way. The people of Canada will want to know how a road 1,800 miles long can be constructed at a cost to the people of only $13,000,000, as the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister have said. We know that the truth is, and the people of Canada know that the truth is, that it involves the country in an expendi- ' tnre of anywhere from $120,000,000 to $150,000,000. This is a serious matter, as it ties up the resources of this country for many years. This young country will demand of necessity vast improvements in our harbours, in our canals, and the erection of post offices and other public buildings, and are we to be told that for fifty years the resources of the country have been so tied up by the construction of this transcontinental railway that all other improvements must be stopped ? This is a serious side of the question, and it will be so considered by the people.


James Clancy: Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to the fact that gentlemen opposite are speaking in loud tones, and are interrupting.	,


David Henderson: If a little levity and a little play helps these hon. gentlemen to drown the feeling of remorse which they have on account of being compelled to support a measure of this kind, I am perfectly willing to grant them that comfort.


Mr. GALLIHER.: The gentlemen on this side of the House have always treated the question seriously, but we may be excused >if we do not take hon. gentlemen opposite seriously.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) is abusing the privileges of the House, when he says that he does not treat us seriously.


David Henderson: I have no objection to allow hon. gentlemen opposite to indulge



in levity so that they may relieve their consciences in the brief period between now and the time that they will be punished by the people for the levity with which they have treated this serious matter for the past fifteen days. There is another serious side of this question. During the next five years the Finance Minister will have to go to the old land to borrow money to meet our maturing obligations, as well as to finance this railway project. The Finance Minister will have to finance the cost of tiie construction of this road, which the Prime Minister has declared he does not expect will pay one cent of interest for possibly ten years. How will the financiers of London regard such a proposition as that ? The Finance Minister will be compelled, in the face of this damaging fact, to appeal to tiie moneyed men of London to put enormous sums into this enterprise, which the First Minister has declared will not pay one per cent on the investment for ten years to come. That must have an injurious and serious effect on the credit of the country. And I trust that the government will carefully consider this vast question before they press it to a conclusion. I propose to review some of the statements that have been made. It is somewhat difficult to find anything new in these statements, even the mountains of information that have been so thoroughly examined by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), revealed nothing new, and I ask where are we to get anything new ? What was the consideration that prompted the establishment of a new transcontinental railway ? The need of increased transportation facilities in the west for the carrying of the grain has been impressed upon this House by a number of members from Manitoba and the North-west Territories during the last two or three sessions. In the speech from the Throne His Excellency,
I presume on the advice of his ministers, told parliament that it would be advisable to have a commission appointed to investigate this matter, owing to the need of increased facilities due to the influx of population to the North-west. In obedience to His Excellency's command our duty, as loyal subjects, was to take the matter into consideration. It was the government's duty to initiate proceedings at once. But no, they failed to deal with the matter promptly. Months passed away in fact before we heard anything more of it, and at length, in a tardy manner, the House was advised that a minute had 'been presented to Council by the Minister of Public Works, and that an Order in Council had been passed to inquire into the transportation facilities of this country.
1 do not propose to read from this Order in Council from which portions have been read again and again. The intention of the Order in Council was to have a commission appointed who should proceed to inquire into Mr. HENDERSON.
the question and advise the government. The government required advice and information as much as members on this side. They were as much in the dark as members of this side or the other side of the House and they had hoped by the issuance of this commission to secure from railway experts and practical business mjen information which would enable them to decide what was the proper course for them as a government to pursue. The object of the construction of the railway that we are now considering was, as stated in the speech from the Throne and as referred to in the Order in Council on May 19, not so much to provide a colonization railway as to provide greater facilities for bringing the products of Manitoba and the North-west Territories down to the sea-coast for export to the old land. Later on, this idea of a colonization railway seems to have come in. It was not contemplated when the speech from the Throne was prepared that the government should provide a colonization railway either for Ontario, Quebec or New Brunswick; these were newfound ideas, which had at first not been contemplated;, and this, I might say, is rather a serious question, because instead of providing the best means to accomplish the end we had in view, our minds have been diverted and turned away in the direction of providing a means for colonization purposes, a subject with which we were not told in the first instance we had to deal. The object of this road, as con-, templated by the speech from the Throne and Order in Council, was to afford relief to the people of the North-west and to relieve the congestion existing there. If the road that the government proposes to construct will not provide immediate relief find cheap transportation for the products of that country, I say that the road will no! be at all what is required by the Order in Council or by the speech from the Throne or what this parliament had in contemplation. The First Minister himself has declared that the relief should be cheap and that it should be immediate. Whether it will afford immediate relief or not is a very simple question^ This road cannot, according to the best information we have received, be constructed and in operation in less than five years. During that time we trust that millions of people more will find their way into the North-west and that many million bushels of wheat in excess of what are produced there at present will have to be moved out of that country. Immediate relief is desired. Will this road furnish immediate relief ? I say it will not, and that is the serious side of the whole question, which I regret very much to say hon. gentlemen to the right seem to treat in the humorous way they have dealt with this whole project. The cheapness of the road lias been investigated by many members of this House. We have had quotation after quotation given to show that an all-rail

route from Winnipeg to Montreal or Quebec cannot possibly carry grain as cheaply as a rail and water route. Unless we can get a railway that can do that, we will fail to secure to the people of the Northwest what we are promising them and what the government are professing to provide, at a cost of $100,000,000 or $150,000,000. But it appears that the great authority on railway matters now is the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I must say that at one time I had considerable confidence in the opinion of the hon. gentleman on some matters, including even this question of transportation, but so desirous is he of pleasing the Prime Minister that we find him changing from day to day, so that what confidence I had in him has entirely disappeared. Here is an opinion he gave only a day or two ago, for which it is difficult to account. When the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) put this question to the hon. gentleman :
Might I ask the hon. gentleman for how much less per mile he expects this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be able to carry grain to the eastern sea-board than the existing road ?
The hon. gentleman replied :
I have some information on that point, which I have elaborated and will give more fully later on, but I may say that I expect the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to carry wheat from Winnipeg to Quebec for three-cents per bushel less than it is carried to-day by part rail and part water-by rail to Port Arthur and thence by rail to Montreal.
Surely the hon. member for North Norfolk could not have been serious when he made that statement. No one knows better than he how absolutely absurd it is to suppose that wheat can be carried by an all-rail route from Winnipeg to Montreal or Quebec cheaper than by an all-rail route from Winnipeg to Fort William. In other words that it can be carried a distance of some 1,400 or 1,500 miles cheaper than 426 miles. The lowest rate that can possibly be obtained is the rate which went into force on the first of September, of ten cents a hundred pounds, or six cents per bushel from Winnipeg to Fort William, yet the hon. member for North Norfolk tells us that wheat can be carried just as cheaply or cheaper from Winnipeg to Montreal or Quebec. If anything could show the absurdity of the scheme before the House, it is the absurdity of the arguments that are advanced to bolster it up. Let me read a few words more from the hon. gentleman's speech. Speaking of the cheapness of rates he said :
I have some information on that point which I have elaborated and will give more fully later on.
How careful the hon. gentleman is.. The First Minister has promised us a pamphlet which will give all the information necessary to justify the construction of this road, and which will be published in a few days, after this Bill is passed. And the hon.
335J
member for North Norfolk has elaborated the question of rates and will give the information later on. Why does he not give it now ? He says further on that in due time he will prove that wheat can be carried from Winnipeg to Quebec at three cents less than by the rail and water route combined. But why keep us in the dark so long ? He says further :
This road is going to solve the transportation problem and carry wheat from the Northwest Territories to the sea-board cheaper than it can be carried by any other line. Railway men have for two or three years past asserted that water transportation could not compete with railways having a grade of four-tenths per cent or twenty-one feet to the mile. Then it seemed to me that this assertion was absurd, but I believe, after full investigation of the data, that it was well founded, and I shall show in due time why I believe so.
The pamphlet of the First Minister will be issued after the Bill is passed. The door will be locked after the horse is stolen. The hon. member for North Norfolk will give information about rates later on, and will prove at some indefinite future time that grain will be carried by this new railway cheaper than by any other route. But is this not the proper time to give us that information ? We are trying to get information from the government before we pass this Bill, but we are promised it after the Bill is passed. As a reward for passing this measure, we will be told all about it. But we insist on being told now. I believe myself that if the hon. member for North Norfolk had a tittle of evidence, he would have given it long before this, and his apparent inability to furnish it gives us reason to doubt all the statements he has made.
The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) made a statement in the course of this debate, and in order not to misrepresent him, I will read his words. He refers to the character of the road and he claims that before this road can be a wheat carrying road, it must have proper conditions of road-bed. He speaks of the abj stract reports of Sir Sandford Fleming of years ago, and others, and says :
The road could be constructed with grades not exceeding fifty feet in the mile and very few of these.
Now, the hon. gentleman has told us that a road with gradients of fifty feet to the mile cannot carry grain. And, notwithstanding that fact, he is prepared to advocate the construction of this road, bolstering up his argument by the statement that,' though the grades are fifty feet to the mile,, by digging you could make them twenty-five feet. I wonder why he could not dig out twenty-five feet more and make it a perfectly level road. If he thought that, by spending money he could make an absolutely level road, I am sure he is humorous enough to make the statement that it would be done.

One other statement that I desire to draw attention to is that of the Prime Minister, made yesterday, in this House. It involves a question which ought to be considered, because I think it is a question that can be argued. You will notice how carefully the right lion. Prime Minister made this statement. He did not venture to say anything on his own authority, but he refers to the hon. member for North Norfolk, upon whom he seems to rely as an expert, and made his statement on the strength of what that hon. gentleman said :
My hon. friend claims that, with the improvement of grades, with the improvement of rails, with the improvement of engines, the time will come

 '
He did not say when it would come

-when railway transportation will overtake and overcome water transportation. We look forward to this time.
And he is going to spend $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 to build a road from Moncton to Winnipeg on the strength of an opinion of this kind. He is only looking forward to the time of which he speaks. It may come only in the dim and distant future. Will it come within the term of the fifty years, and before the government will receive back the property for which we are now called upon to pay, or will it be a longer period ? He does not venture an opinion as to that. The hon. member for North Norfolk is a good Presbyterian and has lots of faith, and he seems to have inspired the First Minister with some of his good Presbyterian faith, for the Prime Minister is imbued with these ideas. He says also :
We look forward to this time. I cannot say we are certain of it, but we hope and believe it will come.
There is nothing like hope for some things, but it is not the best thing on which to build a railway which is to cost $150,000,000.
The question has been raised as to bow far rail traffic is overtaking rail and lake traffic as regards cheapness. Between Chicago and New York there are from six to ten railways, running through a well settled country, a country that is, in so far as I know, comparatively a level country compared with the country between Winnipeg and Quebec. These railways between Chicago and New York, so far as I know, have all the advantages of low gradients and every other facility that will enable a railway to carry grain cheaply. Let us see how they are progressing and overtaking tlie water and rail routes in securing the traffic. I will go back for tbirty-tliree years to the year 1870. In that year it cost 25-20 cents per bushel to carry grain by lake and rail from Chicago to New York, while it cost 35-57 cents per bushel to carry it by all-rail. That is, all-rail transportation cost forty per cent more than lake-and-rail. In 1877 we find not very much change-lake-Mr. HENDERSON.	.
and-rail, 15-46 cents per bushel, all-rail 20-50 per bushel, or thirty-three per cent in excess of all-rail over lake-and-rail. Here seems to be a slight improvement. Is that improvement maintained as the Prime Minister leads us to believe it will be ? We come down now to the year 1884. The cost of haulage by rail, and by lake and rail, lias been reduced. Better and larger vessels are in use, and the whole system of navigation has been improved.	In 1884
it cost ten cents per bushel to carry grffin by lake-and-rail from	Chicago
to New York, while it cost 13-20 cents per bushel to carry it all-rail-a difference of thirty-two per cent, or a decrease of one per cent in the difference in seven years. Now we come down to the year 1891. Railway transportation by this time, has been improved-larger trains, better	engines,
firmer road-beds and all other improvements have enabled railways to reduce rates. But the same thing applies to vessels, for improvements have been made in the method of transportation by water also. In 1891 we find that wheat is carried from Chicago to New York for 8-57 cents per bushel by lake and rail, while it cost fifteen cents per bushel, or seventy-six per cent more to carry it by all-rail. In 1870, the cost by allrail was forty per cent over the cost by lake-and-rail, and in 1891 that had increased to seventy-six per cent. So, there is no growing advantage here m favour of the all-rail, but rather the reverse. We follow it up to 1893, when the cost of lake and rail route was 8-48 cents, and of the all-rail, 14-63 cents, an excess by the all-rail route of 73 per cent. Then again in 1895, by lake-and-rail the cost was 6 96 cents, and by all-rail, 11-89, an excess by the all-rail route over the lake-and-rail of 70 per cent. We continue down to the year 1899, when we find the cost by lake-and-rail was 6-63 cents, and by all-rail 11-60, or a difference of 78 per cent-not a decrease as tlie First Minister said, not an overtaking by the all-rail, but an increased cost in every instance during the latter year. Then in 1900 the cost by lake-and-rail was 5-10 cents and by all-rail, 9-96, or an excess of all-rail over lake-and-rail in 1900, of 95 per cent, not 40 per cent, as it was in 1870. Making the same comparison in 1901, by lake-and-rail the cost per bushel from Chicago to New York was 5-54 cents, and by all-rail 9-88, or an excess in cost by all-rail of 78 per cent. Coming back to 1870 when the excess was only 40 per cent and to 1877, 33 per cent, to 1884, 32 per cent, to 1900 and 1901 respectively, we find that the all-rail route exceeded in cost that of the lake-and-rail by 95 and 78 per cent.
Yet, Sir, notwithstanding these facts the First Minister would lead this House to believe, on the representation of the hon. member for North Norfolk-because be would not venture on bis own reputation to make such a statement that in the years

to come the railways will overtake the lake-and-rail system of carrying freight by cheaper transportation. These quotations are taken from the report of the Departmtnt of Railways and Canals for the year 1902, at page 22V. where all these figures can be found, and a careful perusal of these figures, I think, would demonstrate most effectually that the information given by the hon. member for North Norfolk to the First Minister was entirely erroneous so far as it intimates that the railways are gradually overtaking the lake and-rail system of carrying grain in this country. This is a government report founded on the report of the Chicago Board of Trade, and no better evidence, to my mind, can be produced to show the fallacy of the statement made by the member for North Norfolk and reiterated by the First Minister, to the effect that when this railway is constructed, this great transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Montreal, it would be able to carry grain out of the great North-west cheaper than it could be done by sending it part of the way by rail and part of the way by water.	To my mind
these are most important figures, and in my judgment they absolutely refute the statement that was put forward here yesterday and the day before in support of an all-rail route as against a lalce-and-rail route for the purpose of carrying out the products or the great North-west to market. I trust that the members on the other side of the House will drop this humorous fashion of treating this great question, and that they will approach it in a manner more befitting its serious character. Let them forget the humorous arguments they have been putting forth from day to day to bolster up this scheme, which I do not believe will ever receive the approbation of the people of this country.


Mr.   W ILSON@: We have learned a good many things since this debate commenced, but there are many things more to be learned, so much so that the First Minister states that he is preparing a pamphlet that will give the necessary information as to the location of the road, its cost and so forth.
I think that is a strong reason why this debate should be adjourned until we have an opportunity to study that pamphlet and to get the information that the government does not seem to be either able or willing to give at the present time. This afternoon the discussion has been largely between legal gentlemen concerning the contract. Now this second clause is very sweeping, and I would like the Minister of Justice to say whether we will have an opportunity of going through the contract clause by clause in Committee of the Whole, and making such a discussion as we we see fit.
_ The MINISTER OF JUSTICE. Yes, that is the course that I think ought to be adopted, and if it will help the committee, I
would suggest that we take up all the other clauses of the Bill and let the second clause stand for the moment, that we deal with all the other clauses that can be dealt with irrespective of the contract, and then, when We have got through with them, we will come back to section 2, and on that section take up the contract clause by clause from the first one to the last. I am merely making this suggestion on my own behalf, and not speaking for the government.
ill*. VYILSON. I think the Minister of Justice ought to be an nuthoritv on this subject, because, if he is not the'father of the Bill, he is responsible for it.


Haughton Lennox: Do I understand the Minister of Justice to say that he believes that course would be advisable, and, that he is ready to adopt that course ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Mr.   W ILSON@: I think that would be very satisfactory to this side of the House. How are we to get the information unless we can do that ? I think it was the hon Postmaster General who made the statement that this matter had been considered by the government for the past year; that it was not a matter that had come to them in a few days, or in a few months, but that it had been fairly considered. If that is the case I do not understand how it is that they put in the mouth of His Excellency the statement that a commission would be appointed to investigate this matter and report to the House. It looks to me, if thev had considered this matter for a year, that they ought not to have put that statement in His Excellency's mouth and I do not think that we should have been called upon to remain four months in session before thev brought their proposition down to the House and gave hon. members an opportunity of considering it. The whole course pursued by the government has been very unfair. In the first place, they did not allow the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to have a copy of the Bill until after the right hon gentleman had made his speech and the excuse given for that was that they did not think they ought to treat the hon leader of the opposition better than they treated their own supporters. Well, if that is true-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is true.


Mr.   W ILSON@: I would like to know
what justification there is for it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is another question.


Mr.   W ILSON@: Yes, that is another question. I do not think there should be anything of that kind done in this House. Why should not the motion have been placed on the Order paper just the same as any other motion? We had the motion pro-

Tiding for bounties on iron and the motion providing for the superannuation of judges placed on the Order paper for days and every opportunity was given to hon. members to make themselves familiar with the proposals contained in those motions. Why was the same procedure not followed in connection with this matter ? This Bill is the most important one that I have had anything to do with since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, a Bill which beyond all doubt, means an expenditure of anywhere from $120,000,000 to $150,000,000. ' And, Sir, it is astonishing that the government should not want to take not only their own supporters into their confidence, but the country into their confidence if they have any faith in the scheme at all. I do not see why there should be any star chamber business or any secrecy about this matter. We are here as the representatives of the people, and surely the government ought to let the people anl the people's representatives know what they propose at the earliest possible moment. ' There is another thing about this scheme. The government have, in the first place, promised to let the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have the use of the eastern section of this road, from Winnipeg to Moncton, for seven years absolutely without interest, and if it does not succeed in becoming profitable and paying the working expenses and interest, the interest for the next three years will be charged to capital account. Now, if the government [DOT]have so little faith even in the necessity for a road through that country that they do not expect it will pay interest for the first ten years, what justification is there for building it ? It seems to me that is a very strong argument against the building of the road. Why should the government, if it is composed of business men, make a contract to lease that road to -a company before it is built, or before they know where it is to be located, or before they know what it is to cost ? Hon. gentlemen have been taunted across tbe floor of the House several times, and the question has been askel if any hon. minister of the Crown would make a guess that would come within $10,000,000 of the cost of the road, but up to this hour not a single hon. minister has ventured to make a guess of that kind. I think it was most unfortunate that the right Iron. Prime Minister should take it upon himself, with all his ability and capacity, to sit down with a gentleman like Mr. Hays to make a contract for the construction of this railway, because Mr. Hays is one of the best railway men in this country, and any person who saw him before the Railway Committee is well aware of his business tact. While the right hon. gentleman may be a man on general principles of broad views, he makes no pretensions to be an expert in railway matters, and anybody can see by


Mr.   W ILSON@: looking at the contract and by looking at the Bill, as the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) has said, that they give evidence that the Bill was drawn by the government's solicitors and that the contract was drawn by the solicitors of the company. And why? Because the contract gives all the advantages to the company. Another reason why I say there should be no hurry in this matter is because hon. gentlemen opposite cannot expedite matters one bit by getting the contract through, for the reason that there has been no survey. They cannot go on and make a partial survey and build here and! there. If they are going to build the shortest possible road and the best road possible, so far as grades and curves are concerned, they must survey it from one end to the other. That will take them at least a year. The House will be in session in a year's time. The government ought to make their surveys, get their information, send out exploring parties, find out what kind of a country it is, then make their report to parliament and ask for an appropriation for the purpose of building a railway through that country if it is found to be necessary. That is the course that would be xiursued in a transaction like this by a government composed of business men. If they had- allowed the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) to have had something to say about it, that course would have been pursued instead of telling the people that there was'no time to wait. What advantage have we gained by making a contract with tbe Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company at this early day? Nobody pretends that if this is a bad bargain and if the road does not pay for ten years after it is built, the company are going to run it as a losing concern. It will naturally come back into the hands of the government. I believe that if tbe government had taken the course that they indicated, of finding out what was the necessity for a railway there and what it would cost to build, they would have made a very much better bargain with any railway company if they could have shown the necessity for it. That is what I think ought to have been done and what I think every business man in the country will say ought to have been done. Then, as the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has said, we have taken the lean section, the section which we know nothing about and which the government do not expect will pay within seven or ten years. We give it over to the company to manage and. we say : We will allow you to use this capital of $120,000,000 or $130,000,000 for seven or ten years and we do not want you to pay anything for it if it does not pay you. But, on the prairie section where in all probability there will be a paying business to be done, the government not only allow the company to build the road for themselves, but to own

it, and they say further that they will guarantee the bonds. They will charge the interest up to capital account, and if the company do not pay the bonds the government will have to pay the interest and principal. But when we come to the mountain section the government not only guarani tee the bonds, but they pay the interest for seven years on these bonds.
1 have not heard a man on the government benches justifying either of these things. Orders have gone out, 1 believe, to the government supporters that they must be silent, and I presume we will not hear any justification for this. The government make a great cry about relieving the congestion of traffic in the west, and they say that this railway will help the western farmers out of their troubles, but nevertheless these gentlemen are not prepared to accept the proposition made by the leader of the opposition, which affords the only possible mode of relieving the congestion of traffic in the west. Surely they do not intend to accomplish that end by this project of theirs which the Minister of Agriculture stated would not be built before 1011, or in eight years. But the most absurd of all, is the statement of the government that this road of theirs will not cost the country one cent over $13,000,000. That statement is so absurd that it carries its own refutation on its face. The Postmaster General dealt with the proposition of the leader of the opposition and he gave some very extravagant figures. He says, although the Canada Atlantic Railway was offered within a year for $11,000,000, that it would cost the country $17,000,000 to purchase it. He says that a road from Depot Harbour to Georgian bay would cost $3,000,000 ; from North Bay to Fort William, $38,000,000, and from Fort William to Winnipeg, $15,000,000. He figures up that the scheme of the leader of the opposition would cost $73,640,000, but marvellous to tell, he declares that the government is going to build a road 650 miles longer, mind you, at a cost to the country of only $13,000,000. It is in order now for some minister of the Crown to explain that. It is quite evident they would have a task impossible of accomplishment in doing so,
Now, no matter what the faults of the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) every one admits that he is a good business man. He was the man par excellence in the cabinet who knew about railways ; hi: was an industrious and energetic minister, and he worked day and night. Ret us inquire why he refused to support this scheme of the government. In the first place he felt that he had been ignored by his confreres, and in the second place he refused to assent to the foolish bargain made witli the Grand Trunk Pacific-I think every one admits now that it is a foolish bargain. Mr. Blair's idea was that the government should bring down a proposition for a transcontinental railway to the House, and then
that they should survey and explore the country, so that next year they would he able to place before parliament a scheme that would commend itself to the people of Canada, but that would not suit the government. They insisted upon his staying in the government, but he declared that his conscience could not justify his supporting such a scheme, in the best interests of the country. He was asked to remain -in the government by his colleagues, and to sit silently by, accepting responsibility for a measure which he did not approve of. Mr. Blair revolted against that idea. Since he has left the cabinet he has been belittled by a great many supporters of the government. Before that time, they looked upon him as (lie best minister in the whole lot, and an his influence in his own prqvince was great, I believe that up to this very hour the government would be willing to offer him anything in their power to keep him in line. But, Mr. Chairman, the government seem to be bound to push this Bill through the House, irrespective of whether it is right or wrong. The Postmaster General and the Minister of Finance tell us that a pamphlet is going to be published that will give information about this project of the government, and I appeal to them to delay the passage of this Bill until we have an opportunity of studying that pamphlet. The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) made a very careful comparison between the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition and the scheme proposed by the government, and he showed beyond all reasonable doubt that the government's scheme will cost at least $50,000,000 more than the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition. And not only that, but the hou. member (Mr. Clancy) showed that $30,000,000 of the cost of the government road would be paid out in interest for which the country does not receive one farthing in return. It is a foolish thing for the government to bring down such a measure at so late an hour in the session. They talk about building a railway in a direct line through the heart of New Brunswick, but they know that there are hills 2,000 feet high in that country, and that it will be impossible for them to get the gradients that they have estimated they will get. I appeal to the government even at this late hour, to withdraw this Bill, until next session, whCn we shall have some information with regard to it before us. I trust my appeal will not be in vain. Even in their own interest, it would be better for them to do this, than to appeal to the people on a scheme which in every respect is absolutely indefensible.	*


Mr. BRODER.: It takes a good while to build a railway, particularly when you do not know where you are going to build it. This government may be called a pamphleteer government. Once in a while they

issue pamphlets. They issued one in 1896, which was headed ' Pledges Redeemed -a lie on the face of it. And I venture to say that the pamphlet which the First Minister announced to the country yesterday will be of the same description as the one issued in 189l>. But if the government have any information to give, why dp _ they not give it to us now instead of waiting to publish it in a pamphlet ? But instead they are going to have a pamphlet issued about this road after this measure gets through parliament. No doubt the reason is that not one member of the cabinet knows a single tiling about this road, and the government hope to be able in the course of time to find something *which they can put into a pamphlet to justify the scheme. Who is going to write the pamphlet ? No doubt it will be written by the man who wrote another pamphlet with the object, not of vindicating the building of a railway, but of driving this country into the arms of the United States. These gentlemen now say they are going to build a road from ocean to ocean. That is not what they wanted in the past. If they had succeeded in their-propaganda in 1891, we would not have had a railway built across this continent. Nor would we have had a national port in the province of Nova Scotia. We would instead have had to break the ice around Quebec. We would have had to get a huge ice-boat from Russia to keep the port open at Quebec. But now they are shouting about building a road from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Why ? Because the population has increased so fast since they have been in office. Well, the expense of finding out the population is what is increased, and that is about all. The minister of the Crown who had the census in hand had such hard work finding the population that it cost him $1,250,000 to discover it, as compared with .$500,000, which the previous census [cost. Since they have got into office they tell us that the people have ceased to leave the country. Well, Sir, right from a town not two hours' distant front here, 300 people have gone away since these hon. gentlemen came into power. Turn up the records of exports of settlers' effects, and what do they show ? They show that people are leaving by the hundred. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce used to make a good deal of capital out of the exodus. He harped so continually on the exodus that you would think lie was an Israelite, or Moses himself, frying to bring tlie people out of bondage. It will lie well for him if he does not turn out to he instead an Ishmaelite, with his hand against everybody. Not long ago his bail'd, and the hand of every one of his followers, was raised against the interests of tlie country, yet now they are boasting n limit our prosperity. Fortunately for tliem. there is no opposition to-day decrying the country and giving American immigration agents the best arguments they could have " Mr. BRODER.
for inducing the immigrants of Europe to choose the agricultural lands of tlie western states in preference to the Canadian Northwest. We on this side are not furnishing these agents with speeches such as hon. gentlemen opposite used to deliver when in opposition. Because our population is increasing is one of the reasons given for building this railway from ocean to ocean, but they are proposing to build It where there are no people. A man who will get on this railway in Winnipeg will not strike civilization until he reaches Quebec, 1,450 miles away. AVbat will lie do if he wants to see his clergyman, or get a pair of boots, or a barrel of flour, or And out what (lie Postmaster General is doing with the letters ? He will have to wait until he reaches Quebec. It is about time that they sent that pamphlet out to the country, and the danger is it will have Oeesar's image and superscription upon it, with the motto ' Render unto Cresar the things that are Caesar's.' While these hon. gentleman are boasting about a road from ocean to ocean, they are failing to .settle the serious question which has been demanding settlement for several years. I refer to the question of a cheaper rate of export on the products of the farm. Every cent you put upon the transportation of this country is a tax upon the people. These gentlemen are not going to relieve the people of one iota of that difficulty by the proposition before the House. Does the Minister of Justice pretend that this proposed railway will carry grain any cheaper than it is carried to-day? I do not wonder that the government would not let this Bill see daylight until they could not help themselves. It is evident that the Minister of Justice did not draft it, for when it did come down he could not conceal his disappointment. It was not drawn up by the Minister of Justice, but by the men who got what they wanted out of the bargain. The Granl Trunk Railway got what they wanted and left the rest for Canada. They got the tenderloin and the sirloin steak and we got a steak off the neck. And we will get it in the neck too, and no one knows that better than the hon. Minister of Justice. He cannot temper his justice with mercy in this case. Now they are going to write a pamphlet to give a character to that country. They should give such a letter as I gave to a gentleman who came to me and wanted a recommendation, i said :	' To whom it may concern ; here
is a man I never knew to do a hit of work he could get out of. If you can make use of such a man you are welcome to him. and he has my blessing.' The man said, 'that will ruin me,' I said. * you had better not take it then. I cannot tell any lies for you.' ' Well,' he said, 'I will not take it,' I replied, 'In that case I give you credit for a good deal of common sense.' Now, Sir, that is the kind of pamphlet we are going to get now, that is the kind of pamphlets

that are being written somewhere about these buildings. The man is a good writer, and the pamphlet he will write will justify this scheme to the people of this country.
L need not tell the Minister of Justice his name, he knows all about it, and, Sir, that is the data upon which they intend to go to the country. A pamphlet giving this road a character, but which does not say where the road is going to go. They may talk about the height of land, they may talk about spruce and poplar and jack pine. No man in this country ever gave this territory as bad a character as the men who are trying to boom it up, and I advise the First Minister and the Minister of Finance [DOT]when they want to give a soil a character, not to say that it is covered with spruce and white birch and jack pine, because there is not a hard-headed man in this country who has any common sense and who known anything about the soil, who would not be convinced that there is no soil worth cultivating beneath such timber as that. Why did they not consult the Minister of Agriculture as to what kind of land that would be found under the roots of such trees as tamarack, balsam, spruce and white birch ? You might as well say that the soil is poor when you say that it has s.uch timber on it. And you need not get up and accuse this side of belittling the soil, because you fastened upon it a stigma that can never be got rid of in the estimation of any farmer in this country. I referred the other day to the effect that the imposition of an export duty on pulp wood, which could bit inaugurated by the Finance Minister with one stroke of his pen, would have in developing the pulp industry, and I then said that such an export duty would be of morn benefit to Canada than this railway will be. The Americans would be obliged to move their mills to Canada in order to get material to manufacture pulp and paper, because Canada largely holds the pulp area of this continent. And no one has a keener insight into that question than the American himself. I told the House the other day that a gentleman representing an important pulp machinery firm in the United States informed me that this effect would Aom from the imposition of such a duty. Yet, Sir. these gentlemen are going to build their road up through this pulp wood district to relieve the congested district-the congested district up there where there is not an individual living to-day. A railway to do this country good must reduce the expense oi' transporting our bulky goods across coun try to the markets of the world.
In France, where the railway question has been carefully studied, they have found that in the particular localities where they de velop their canal and river routes the railways do more business than where canals do not exist. That is the proper system. The canal and water route takes out the bulky stuff, you Carry your bulky unmanufactured stuff up your water-ways if yoi; wish, and bring the manufactured article, Which requires quicker transit, down jour railways. These gentlemen have not even thought of that, they have never thought of anything in the interest of this country, only what has been put into their heads by the Tories; then they put a little Grit jacke1-: on a Tory object and say, look what we have done. That is what they have done with the tariff. They will have to be careful. 'Oh,' they say, 'the country has got so big we cannot play with the boys we used to play with.' Of course we know that. When you become a man, you put away child's things, but you were children a long time. You were children long after other men had got their growth in political matters.
It is a difficult matter for one great party to enhance and further the interest of the country while there is another great party sitting on the bent hindering the raisers, the one trying to build up the country and the other trying to pull it down. A pretty miserable man, a pretty poor sort of a man can pull down anything, but it takes a better man to build it up, and there is no stronger proof of the necessity of growth on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, than that their whole object for nearly a quarter of a century has been to pull down what other men have built up. They have not a solitary thing they can set down to their credit. All they can do is to grease the cart, and they have greased it well, particularly when their old friends were driving it, the same old wheels, the same old axles, even the same old lynch pins-the ship of state with the same flag over the masthead, 'Canada for the Canadians' and they dare not say anything else. They may talk about having fixed policies, but look at their position on the trade question. If a speech is to be made in a locality where the people are in favour of free trade, they put up a minister to talk free trade-they have got him. Where there is a strong protective feeling, they put up a minister who talks protection-they have got him too. In an indifferent district, where the people do not know what they want, they put up a minister-and again they have got one or two-who does not know what he wants. They have men who cannot declare what they want.
That is what I call an omnibus government. You know what an omnibus is-it leaves the. hotel with all sorts of people and parcels. You can find anything you like in this omnibus government-free-traders, protectionists, revenue-tariff men, annexationists, no doubt people who are waiting, trying to find out what they are. and men who tell us that having a surplus means adding to our debt. They say they have a surplus greater than has been, taking the words used by the Postmaster General on his postage stamps. ' We hold an empire greater than has been.'

and, as I said once before, the Postmaster General could put a whole empire on a postage stamp, but he could not do anything to build up the country. Those postage stamps are worth more to-day than when they were issued-the farther they get from the Postmaster General the more valuable they are. That is true of all things in this country- the farther they get from the government the better they are. I suppose that is why they are going to put this railway two or three hundred miles to the north. This railway of theirs originated with the Trans-Canada people. You know, Mr. Chairman, some men get the benefit of inventions made by others. A quietus has been put on the Trans-Canada fellows. Nobody can tell us just what has happened to them. They have fallen out of bed, but not one of them has been hurt. A short time ago some lion, gentlemen were touring about from Halifax to Vancouver advocating this Trans-Canada project. But now their guns are spiked just like those of the government's folloKv-ers in this debate. The Prime Minister says ' Shut up,' and they shut up. Their guns are spiked. It is to be hoped in the interest of the country that they will stay spiked. There was a great deal of trouble some time before this Bill was brought before us, when steel and coal stocks went down out of sight. When the country found there was too big a steal, down went the stocks. There were some individuals in a pretty awkward position on account of that business. This contract is dated the 29th of July. And if you follow the line marked by that date and the incidents I have indicated, you will find a certain Senator whom they call Cox. He does not belong to Coxey's army : he is Cox himself. That is where this whole business originated. And the Trans-Canada people have to shut up shop. There are men, a group of men in the position of masters of this government. I am not going to say who they are. But the government have to father this scheme in order to please them. This House met before the middle of March, and this document was not signed until the 29tli of July, and then these lion, gentlemen opposite talk about the opposition obstructing the business of the House. They have laid before us a proposition that not a single man of them, from the Prime Minister down, knows anything about. They tell us they are going to have somebody write a pamphlet to give members of the House information to enable them to deal with this matter intelligently. Well, are they going to build this road without a survey, if not they might as well have the survey before ratifying this agreement, because it will take no more time to make the survey before the agreement than after ? We are told about a level country at the height of land. It must be comparatively level, because it is between the two slopes. And they say they are going to run a beeline. But there are large lakes in that coun-Mr. BRODER.
try, and what will you do when you meet one of these ? There must be a detour. The government do not know whether it will be two hundred miles longer or shorter than they say. They go back 250 years for the reports of missionaries describing that country. Why, what was the missionary looking for ? For a line to build a railroad ? No, he was looking for sinners. If he were alive to-day he would find a lot of them. Instead of going looking among the Indians, lie would do well to deal with those people on tiie other side of this House. He might have harder work, but he would have more praise in this world and in the next. Then they refer us to the pamphlet of Hon. G. W. Itoss, about New Ontario-a pamphlet got up for election purposes. This pamphlet that they speak of getting up will draw its inspiration from Hon. G. W. Ross' pamphlet, which itself is without foundation. The further they get from the facts the better they will be pleased. Well, they are likely to be pretty well pleased, for they will be. a long way from the facts. This road still leaves unsolved the serious question which is affecting the interests of this country. You are not going to run wheat from Winnipeg through to Quebec over that road and save any money, as against the present line. What is the Grand Trunk Pacific going to do ? They are going to do just ns they like with the grain. If they drop down to North Bay they will send their wheat down over the other road and you will have nothing to say about it. When the people wake up to the fact as to what this means, that pacific feeling in the country that they are dreaming about, won't be there. The people have some idea of what, they want, they want cheaper transportation, and there is not a member of the government from the Premier down, can get up and give a word of proof to show that this road will bring about any such result.
Now, one thing surprises me, and that is that the Minister of Agriculture, who is so fond of cold storage, does not take more interest in this road, that will be frozen most of the year. He will have no trouble getting ice up there. He can keep cheese frozen all the year round up in that country if he pays a little attention to it. But, Sir, he has taken the least interest in this road of any man among them. I cannot understand that. Let me digress a little here, because it is useful to digress when the hour is late. I notice that some of our Canadian butter landed in England the other day, mouldy and out of condition, and I was just wondering whether that had gone over in cold storage. The Minister of Agriculture wants to look up that matter a little.
Now, if this railroad were built to-morrow, it is not going to lessen the transportation of grain one cent on a hundred bushels, let alone one bushel. There is another thing.
1 hold strongly the idea that in the working out of the transportation question in the

future, the flouring mills will be brought east instead of remaining in the west. Why? Because the by-products, such as bran, shorts, and all that sort of thing, can be carried cheaper in the grain than they can be in any other way, and as the east is to be the great dairying section, it will be a great user of that product. Of necessity the wheat will be ground into flour in the eastern part of this country. Now, is this road in a dairying section ? Are you going to cheapen rates in the dairying section V There is not a cow within 200 miles of it.
The hon. gentlemen are looking into problems that want solution. The real problem that these gentlemen are anxious to solve, that lies nearest their heart, is not the interest of the country, but the interest of their party, how they can be returned to power, and they expect to ride into victory over this road. Well, Sir, they will get into some of these muskegs we hear of in that country, if they attempt that sort of thing. The people are not going to be fooled into any such idea as that. There is too much hard common sense among the people of this country to allow themselves to be fooled any longer by such a proposition as that. The money that you are putting into this scheme will build the Georgian bay canal, and there Will be a twenty-one foot depth. Then you will have solved to a great extent not only the grain problem of the Canadian west but the grain problem of the western states. But that is not what these gentlemen want. They want a scheme that nobody else has ever heard of, they want one item at least to their credit. They want something that they can call their own, and they are anxious to build this road where nobody lives and where nobody ever will live, so that there will be no doubt as to who it belongs to. Well, the country will never have any doubt. If there is one duty that hon. gentlemen opposite are charged with and that public men generally are charged with more than another, it is the full solution of the question of giving the producers of this country, whether agriculturists or manufacturers, the 'cheaper transportation that is demanded on every hand.


Mr.   BDAIN@: There has been a great deal of discussion on the question that is now before the House, and although the hour is late, I propose to offer a few remarks. One of the chief reasons submitted by the government for the construction of this transcontinental railway is that it will assist the people from the west in getting their wheat and other cereals to tide water, giving not only cheaper but quicker transportation in the harvest and threshing season of the year. Alongside the proposition submitted by the government, the leader of the opposition has set forth the views of the Liberal-Conservative party on the question of transportation. The leader of the opposition and the Liberal-Conservative party do uot occupy the same position as the government do in this House. We are on the opposition side of the House and cannot legislate, the government have the privilege of legislating for the people of Canada. A great deal of criticism has been offered by gentlemen from western Canada on the transportation question, considerable criticism has been offered to the proposition submitted by the leader of the opposition. I would like to draw attention to some statements made by one or two of those gentlemen prior to the introduction of this transcontinental measure. When we were discussing this measure at the last session of parliament, the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) used these words :
Another feature we must not lose sight of i3 the fact that the Intercolonial belongs to the people. True, it has cost something like $60,000,000, hut we own the road, and I believe the timie will come when it will be a valuable asset.
I believe that it will become in the near future the starting point of a great national highway.


Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. Chairman, 1 call your attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman is alluding to a previous debate.


Robert Holmes: Not in this session.


Mr. BLAIN.: My hon. friend, as usual, is just a little mistaken. My good friend, I suppose, has been asleep, and did not catch the trend of the discussion, therefore I will not ask him to apologize. The hon. gentleman said further :
I believe that the government made a mistake in not having bought the control of the Canada Atlantic Railway some time ago.
That was the opinion of the hon. gentleman when discussing this matter last year. He said that the government had failed in their duty to the people of the west for not purchasing the Canada Atlantic Railway.
The Intercolonial Railway should have been extended from Montreal to Depot Harbour.

There is a complete endorsation of the policy of the hon. leader of the opposition which has been submitted to the House this session for the solution of the transportation problem.
The Intercolonial Railway should have been extended from Montreal to Depot Harbour, on the great lakes, so as to give an outlet by the government road from the great lakes to the sea-board. I believe also that we should continue t.he Intercolonial Railway through the province of Quebec, direct from the city of Quebec, the whole way to the Pacific coast.
The hon. gentleman endorses exactly the proposition which is submitted by the hon. leader of the opposition. True, his remarks were made last year before the introduction of the transcontinental railway scheme. It Is quite true that when the matter was up for discussion, when hon. gentlemen from the west were complaining that a congestion of grain existed in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, that hon. gentleman, who claimed to know what he was speaking

about, made the statement that the true solution of tile transportation Question was to extend the Intercolonial Railway to the Pacific coast. Of course, the hon. gentleman has changed his mind. He does not Relieve that is the true solution of the Question now. The hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser), whom I do not see in his place at present, also made a statement. as follows :
The truth was brought out clearly the other day by Mr. Fraser, M.P., for Guysboro,' who -declared that it did not matter what was done with Canadian grain so long as the producers obtained a good price for [DOT](.
Mr. Heyd, of South Brant, estimated that to carry Ontario grain about through the maritime provinces would mean the loss of two cents per bushel. That would be Che penalty in such a case of the all-Canadian route.
That is what the hon. gentleman believes will be the result to the farmers of the west if this transcontinental railway is completed. The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) makes the statement that the farmers of western Canada will lose two cents per bushel on every bushel transported over the transcontinental railway, yet that hon. gentleman stands up and says that he will vote for the construction of the transcontinental railway for the purpose of assisting the farmers in western Canada. I am informed that the hour is very late, and
1	notice the horn. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) is getting a little uneasy. I will sit down to make way for a suggestion which will be made to the committee.


Mr.   BIONIC@: I would suggest to the government that, in view of the lengthy discussion that lias been had upon clause 2 and the fact that clause 2 in effect covers the whole agreement, possibly we may suspend the examination of that clause, and perhaps take up some of the other clauses of the Bill that do not require such a lengthy discussion, and pass them if possible.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There can he no objection to that course. We will proceed to clause 3.


Robert Holmes: Clause
2	stands.
On section 7,


Mr.   BIONIC@: Perhaps you will allow that clause to stand.


The POSTBIASTER GENERAL.: Yes, it stands.


The GHAIRBIAN (Mr. Holmes).: Stands. Clauses 8 and 9 stand.
On section 12,


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Wo have done rather a good day's work, and I therefore, with the consent of the committee, Mr. BLAIN.
move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Blot ion agreed to, and progress reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Mr.   BIONIC@: I would like to ask what other business, outside of this, may be taken up on Monday next ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are a number of matters on the Order paper which have not engaged our attention for some time. We have difficulty'in indicating at present wihich particular one will be taken up, but as most of them have already been debated, I do not imagine that hon. gentlemen opposite will find themselves unprepared for any measure we do take up. We will select from the list of Bills aud motions which have been standing oh thle Order paper.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Will
you take Supply.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Probably not Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Blotion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.25 p.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 7, 1903.