1903-08-14

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.
Mr. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmoreland).: When the debate adjourned last evening, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of the benefits which will result to the country, in the way of colonization, from the scheme now under discussion. I was pointing out that the lands along the route of the proposed railway would he very much more enhanced in value, and I propose to dwell for a moment on this point of the question more particularly as regards that portion of the route with which I am familiar. I know that in the province of New Brunswick the sections which will be opened up by this railway are very rich in agricultural and other resources and only require greater railway facilities to become centres of settlement. In those districts there are rich forest preserves, which have as yet scarcely been touched. Only those portions near the streams have been worked, leaving vast regions from which immense stores of wealth can be taken. There are besides abundant mineral resources and a soil well adapted for agriculture. In the constituency represented by my bon. friend from Queen's and Sunbury (Mr. Wilmot) there are rich coal deposits, which only need to be brought into touch with the market. So that from whatever point of view you choose to look at it, the projected line through that province cannot fail to promote settlement, to enhance the value of land, and aid in the development of rich forest and mineral resources. Coming to the province of Quebec, with which I am of course not quite so familiar, I have been fortunate enough to have had placed in my hands a reference, which I think will prove that the portion of that province to be opened up by tbis transcontinental railway is a very promising one. For many years there has been a strong desire on tlie part of people living in that section, who are familiar with its fertility and resources, for railway facilities. In 1884, the then member for Bellechasse in the

Quebec legislature, tlie late Fauclier de St. Maurice, who was one of the leaders of the Conservative party of that day, and far more patriotic' than any possessed by that party to-day, read in the Assembly a letter from the Reverend Mr. G. Boulet, parish priest of St. Magloire, in which that clergyman said :-
I see by the press that you and your friends are working to have a railway built which will pass along the southern front of the county of Dorchester, Bellechasse, Montmagny, L'Islet and Kamouraska. That would be a grand and patriotic undertaking, a most happy conception, one that should long since have been realized.
That is exactly the line to be taken by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway except that it crosses the county at Levis instead of Dorchester.
In rear of the above named counties there is a magnificent valley, most suitable for the construction of a railway. It is neither hilly nor rocky. Starting from Metgermette, sloping down to Edmundston, there is a regular and fertile plain. Any company that would undertake to build a railway there would find all the necessary material on the ground. Cedar and spruce abound.
Well, Sir, Edmundston and the valley that extends to it in New Brunswick, is exactly the land over which the new line is proposed to be built.
Why do not our governments direct their colonizing and improving energies in that direction. The soil is suited to all kinds of cultivation, the climate is milder than the northern one of the Saguenay region.
This is exactly what my right lion, friend the Prime Minister proposes doing, but which the Conservative party of to-dayunworthy descendants of men like Fauclier -will have none of. It was Mr. Fauclier de Saint Maurice who said :
From the south shore of the St. Lawrence is the frontier of Maine, the land must be rescued from its unvisited isolation, and that heart of New Brunswick must be opened, but by an artery that will send its pulsations east and west to give life to the commerce of our country. But it is the federal, not the provincial government that must accomplish the work.
Further on he said :
Unfortunately my influence, humble as it is. goes not beyond the provincial sphere, but some day, men of large views and iron nerves will arise to accomplish the patriotic task, which the letter I have read so recommends, and whomsoever they may be, future generations will bless them.
These were the utterances in 1884 of one of the Conservative leaders of that day, and an eminent litterateur, in whose footprints the Tartes, the Casgrains, the Monks and others of our day were ever proud to follow. This shows the opinion held at that period of the rich resources of that section of the province of Quebec, which hon. gentlemen opposite are now so anxious to decry. From Moncton to the in-Mr. EMMERSON.
terior of New Brunswick, through the counties of Queen's, York, Carleton, Victoria, Madawaska, on into the province of Quebec, there is a long unbroken line of country, rich in agricultural mineral and forest wealth.
I do not look upon this scheme as merely one for the purpose of finding an outlet for the rich products of the west. If It were necessary, it would be well perhaps to have it for that alone. But when you combine the other attractive feature, the development of the country, with that of colonization, it certainly is a scheme which must commend itself to the people of our day in Canada. It certainly will receive the plaudits of those who are to come after us, of those who will enjoy the rich benefits which, will result from the accomplishment of this great project.
Now we are told that in northern Quebec there are conditions very similar in character to the conditions which exist in that section to which I have just now referred. There always has been, and is to-day, I believe, a great desire in tlie province of Quebec to colonize its undeveloped country. Away back in 1853, and from that time down, the cry through that province has been, Colonize. The national poet of French Canada gave the watchword to the people when he said, ' Let us take possession of tlie soil.' He wanted them to enter the forest, to open up roads, to establish settlements, and to turn a desert region into gardens of plenty. For fifty years the people have been called upon to push forward colonization projects, but they could not respond to the call. It was easier for their young men, as it was easier for the young men of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to cross over into the borderland, to go into the great neighbouring republic, and as a result tlie New England States contain today, I might almost say, millions of the bone and sinew, of the brawn and brain of our maritime provinces and of the province of Quebec. This is more true of those provinces than it is of the province of Ontario, because in Ontario the people have enjoyed the developing influences of railways. * It is true, they have made many sacrifices to obtain these railways, they have adopted schemes of bonusing railways by the municipalities, and they have had great assistance from their national and provincial governments. But even there the blighting influence of these enticing calls from tlie southern republic has been felt, and this is further true in the maritime provinces and tlie province of Quebec. If these young men could have been kept in our country, they would have helped to build up Canada, they would have found means of earning their way into tlie vast regions of our northern country. This railway now contemplated will do all this for our young men who are now living here ; it will do more, it will invite people from abroad. It will estab-

lisli settlements, It will broaden ont our settled area, and it will increase tlie value of our great domain. This railway will create a highway through the heart of a region which possesses untold resources, the wealth of which, for petty political reasons, the opposition of to-day are willing to deny. They are ready and willing to hold their country up to the wide world as a land confined to a few valleys, the greater portion of which is as barren as the Tartar steppes. I was pained to hear my hon. friend the ex-Miu-ister of Railways refer to his province of New Brunswick in the way he did. lie was willing to hold up that province as one the greater portion of which did not contain resources worthy of consideration. It seems to me lie has not, in that respect, done justice to his own province.
Speaking in a general way, the line from Quebec westward will pass along the northern slope, as I understand it, of the Lam-entinns, and that dividing line will cut through the vast valleys out of which spring the Batiscan, the St. Maurice, the Gatineau, the Coulonge, the Desmoines, and the Ottawa rivers. From the best sources of information that is from men who have travelled over and over again through these great sections, the resources of that country are three-fold-forest, mineral and agricultural. On the Batiscan, away north beyond the parish of St. Narcisse, there fj'fe forests of spruce which extend westward and northward all along that line, in addition to the pine and spruce forests north of the rivers I have just mentioned.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to ask what report he is reading from ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not reading from a report.


Samuel Hughes: I thought he was reading from some clergyman's report.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend will pardon me, I am only giving him some information which I am sure will be of benefit to him, because it relates to the province of Quebec.


Samuel Hughes: I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, to hear his remarks, but 1 thought he was reading from some clergyman's report.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, it would certainly' be much better if it were from a clergyman's report.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman would appreciate it all the more.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend, I know, likes things tinged with theology ; perhaps he would appreciate still more anything that was tinged with religion, but in this case I am not drawing for him a religious picture. The proposed line will run through a region of country that will supply the pulp industries of the world for a century to come.
The reports which have been read to this House, containing the information which I am endeavouring to give at this moment, are confirmatory of all that has been said in regard to it in official documents. The province of Quebec have sent out many exploring parties into that section of the country, and in the archives of the province are records showing the great value of the resources of that region, giving full information as to its topography and as to its mineral, agricultural and forest wealth. We cannot shut our eyes to these facts. It is all very well to say there is no information; it is all very well to refuse to accept the information which comes to us from all these sources. In the days when the Canadian Pacific Railway was projected we did not have any such information with regard to that proposed line as we have to-day with respect to the projected line now under discussion.
I think one hon. gentleman stated in the House that in all that region you could not find a tree as large as a man's leg. That is an assertion tending, as I think, to mislead the country. And it is easy to make such assertions. It is easy to deal in a spirit of levity even with important matters like this ; but that spirit should not characterize the utterances of hon. members of this House, especially when dealing with a project of this character. For this is not a question merely of and. for to-day. This is a work for the future of our country, and it is one that is fraught with great possi-'bilities, not merely for us, but for our children, and not merely for us and for our children, but for those who shall come into this country. We are putting forth our best efforts day by day and year by year to influence the best citizenship of other countries to come to our land, where they can build for themselves homes under conditions that offer them every hope of prosperity and happiness. Now, as I understand, there is in the Crown Lands Department of Quebec, information of an official character which refutes the insinuation covered by remarks such as the one to which I have just referred. And, while it may be asserted in this House for a purpose, that that country has no rich timber resources and offers no opportunity for industry, we know that the statement is refuted by the actual conditions prevailing in the province of Quebec. Annually the government there have their sales of timber limits ; and what values are placed by the business men engaged in the great lumber and pulp industry upon the privileges offer: ed at these sales ? We know that the highest prices are obtained by the Quebec government for these timber limits. Business men, looking for investment for their capital, attach greater value to the resources of that country than hon. gentlemen opposite seem to do. The fact that these men place so high a value upon the timber resources

of that region Would alone justify tlie government in deciding that this land must have railway facilities, apart altogether from the grander scheme of furnishing ' spout,' as it is called, for the great grain reservoir of the west through Canadian territory to Canadian seaports. The government should not lose sight, and I am sure does not lose sight of the importance of settling and peopling that timber region, and developing and working the resources of sections which are now, in a sense, isolated and removed from civilizing influence of railways and centres of population. It is objected that these timbered lands are watered by rivers which flow towards the markets of the country, and that they afford channels by which the timber can be more readily and cheaply brought to market than can be done by railway. That may be true of certain strips of land bordering these rivers. But we all know that there are heights beyond, that there are sections somewhat remote from these rivers which the lumberman cannot tap, so that their rich timber resources lie dormant. We know that that country has these great timber resources, or whence come the vast quantities of pine that float down the Gatineau, the Colounge, the Des-inoines and Black rivers ? For a hundred miles beyond	the timber	limits now	leasedand worked,	there	are	pine and	spruceforests, as I am informed, but they cannot be worked, because there are no railway facilities, and because, as they lie north of the height of	land,	the	rivers flow	northward, and so	carry	the	timber away from
and not to the market. As I understand it, this railway will be on the northern side of the Laurentian range, and it will be to the northern side what the rivers I have named are to the forest wealth of this side of the slope. I am also informed that there are rich mineral deposits, particularly of phosphate, as well as deposits of precious ores. This is, perhaps, in a sense, conjecture. The value of an undeveloped mineral country is, after all, a matter of conjecture and speculation ; until you have your mines actually working, even the fairest prospect cannot be counted upon as a certainty. The geological formation of the Laurentian does not change as you go north ; it is the same great upheaval, and the same conditions prevail. What is to De found in its strata on this side of the range is to be found on the other side also, but in what proportion remains to be discovered. All this will be discovered when this railway shall have made if worth while for the prospector and the miner to undergo the toil and incur the expense necessary. The road, as designed, will pass along a chain of lafies that extends, link by link, from Lake St. John, in the east, to Lake Abbittibi, in the west. That the Lake St. John country is an agricultural region no one can deny. Only those who know nothing about will venture to deny it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The land is exactly of the same character as the land to the westward. The soil is watered by a similar source, and enjoys similar conditions conducive to fertility.


Mr. GANONG.: Is this road supposed to go from Quebec to Lake St. John ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Gilbert White Ganong: Then why is Lake St. John- included in the description of the route of this road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It does not go to Lake St. John. There is a road now to Lake St. John. This road goes from Quebec. 1 refer to Lake St. John as the eastern extremity of a region which is rich as an agricultural section, and I say that there are continuous links of lakes running eastward from Lake St. John, that the Lake St. John region is known to be rich and that the country surrounding the other lakes to the westward is of the same character.


Mr. BROCK.: You are all wrong.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend from Torouto (Mr. Brock) shakes his head. Anybody who knows nothing about it is in a position to deny, but those who understand it, those who have information upon the subject, are not in that position. There is one thing that is known and known to a verity, and that is that there are very many rich farms to the north of us on the Gatineau river, along the Desert, and on the Baska-tonge. Even to-day, without these facilities, the pioneer has gone in and he has demonstrated that there can be carved out in that region rich and flourishing sections of agricultural country. I am informed that only the other day there left the city- of Montreal a colonizing expedition to visit this rich, this fertile, this splendid section of country, and I fancy that the very anticipation of this line of railway is what has induced these adventurers to go into that section of the country. They want to pre-empt the land for future occupation, they have gone there for that purpose, and already the fruits of this scheme are becoming evident in the province of Quebec. There are away north in sections of the country not penetrated by others than the explorer fine farms that have been snatched from the wilderness by the lumber operators. These farms are well situated, only that they require facilities for marketing. They are situated on the shores of lakes or streams or on the slopes of the hillsides. All this is evidence of the fact that there are in the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick-I shall not refer to the province of Ontario as we are all familiar with what has been said in respect to that province-lying alongside the proposed route of this road lands rich in forest wealth and having prospects of rich mineral resources. These require development, and in their development settlements will be established and new constituencies created. In the province of

New Brunswick we are complaining and suffering to-day from the fact that we are losing at this redistribution a seat in this House. In the province of Ontario, they are losing, 1 think, six representatives, and if it had not been for the results of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Algoma district, Ontario would have lost more than six. Now, these provinces, in order to retain their representation, must have the development of those sections of country which are now lying dead and dormant. The hope of New Brunswick lies now upon its great interior, in the development of its mineral resources, in making marketable its rich forest wealth and in the creation of rich agricultural districts. Decade after decade they are losing their representatives on the floor of this House. There must be something done to arrest this decay, and the same is true in respect of Ontario. If the Canadian Pacific Railway could establish settlements and assemble population to the extent of thousands and tens of thousands in the Algoma district to the north of the Nipissing, surely these other provinces by reason of this scheme, this railway, being projected through them can establish settlements, can make additions to the population, and effect the maintenance of the status of the provinces in the Dominion. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that where so much has been said on this subject I will be only wearying the House and worrying myself if I were to attempt to elaborate more on this subject. It is fruitful of discussion, and I am sure, in a sense, very profitable, but there are other features of this scheme with which I desire to deal, and they are practically the features which while it is not sectional, will affect in a marked degree the constituency from which I come. I have said that the leadership in the criticism and condemnation of the Bill now under discussion comes from a gentleman who has for many years been the leader from New Brunswick in the councils of the executive of this Dominion. A gentleman who has held a very high position not only in his own province, but in the cabinet of the Dominion, and who has wielded a very marked influence, and I am bound to say worthily wielded that influence. The very fact that he criticises and condemns this measure, as hon. members know, must necessarily have an influence.


William Rees Brock: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) says ' hear, hear,' and quite true. It would be very strange if it were not so and yet I think it is due to the members of this House that they should inquire into the character of that criticism and condemnation. The fact that he has criticised and condemned the measure caused a great up-heavel amongst gentlemen opposite. I could see a glow in their countenances.
At the conclusion of the speech these hon. gentlemen so delighted with the utterances of the ex-minister, were forgetful of the past. I could not hear an echo of anything that had occurred with respect to that hon. gentleman in the very recent past, nor could I see any evidence of memory on their part, as to what they had been saying about him for the past seven or ten years. I realize that when men die nothing but good is said of them, and that in many instances they are sainted. When a Liberal departs from the ranks of his party and gives comfort to our opponents, these gentlemen canonize him, and we hear from them not a hint of Drummond steals or of Tarte traitors. That is all forgotten, and these gentlemen cherish the idea that there can be wiped out from memory for all time, that which they have done and said. It was amusing to see our Conservative friends cross the floor of the House at the conclusion of that speech and congratulate the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. Their leader headed the phalanx and one after another they crossed the floor to felicitate their former opponent.	_
It is my purpose to consider and to discuss the utterances of that hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) particularly in connection with the features of this scheme between Moncton and Quebec. In the first place, the hon. gentleman said that there should not be a railway constructed from Levis to Moncton over the route indicated, because it'would parallel and duplicate the present Intercolonial Railway, and in liis letter to the Premier the hon. gentleman stated that it was practically because of tliat proposal that he resigned his portfolio. In taking that high moral ground, as he claims conscientiously, he has perhaps unconsciously ascribed to himself a monopoly of all the conscience and high moral tone which may appertain to members from the pro\ ince of New Brunswick. He insinuates that those who differ from him are not actuated by the same high moral attributes which lie possesses. Indeed, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) went so far as to say once in this House, that there was no one in the*province of New Brunswick who favoured the proposed railway between Quebec and Moncton except those who hoped to profit by the expenditure of the money. A more unworthy stigma was never cast upon the people of New Brunswick, and coming from so high an authority it is worth inquiring how far it may be true. The hon. gentleman admitted that the city council of Moncton passed a resolution favouring the scheme, but he said in effect, that they would not have passed that resolution if they only waited to learn all about it from liini. Let us remember that the Moncton city council is constituted without logaid to ' federal political lines, that there are Liberals and Conservatives in that council and that the mayor of the city is a Conser-

vative. That council unanimously passed a resolution favouring this scheme in its entirety, and favouring it unequivocally and without reservation. Later on, the Moncton Board of Trade discussed the matter as they had discussed it six or eight months before, at which time they favoured by resolution practically the scheme which has been adopted. In their recent resolution the board of trade declared strongly in favour of the scheme, but not unanimously. There were actually two who opposed the resolution. One of them, I believe, is the managing director or president of the board of directors of the ' Times ' Publishing Company, a newspaper which neither at the present time nor in the past has supported anything that savoured of Liberalism The other opponent of that resolution was the editor of that newspaper. These two were against the leading Conservative business men, and against the leading Liberal business men, and against the citizens of Moncton generally. These two gentlemen stand on record, the lonely two in the city of Moncton, opposed to the construction of that line between Moncton and Quebec. However, they do not count, and therefore it may very well be said that the Moncton Board of Trade is unanimous in favour of the government scheme.
The first objection made by the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) to that line, is that it parallels and duplicates the Intercolonial Kailway. It seems to me, however, that it is possible that two lines of railway may connect at the same points, and at the same time one need not necessarily be a paralleling or a duplicating of the other. It is a new idea that because two points are connected by a certain railway there shall consequently be no other railway built to connect these same points. Why, Sir, the records of parliament are teeming with illustrations antagonistic of that principle. For years in New Brunswick we have been practically doing the same thing as is now proposed, and the same rule has been applied throughout the Dominion. I am informed that the Department of Railways and Canals administered by the ex-minister in 1899 bonused the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway to parallel the Michigan Central from Ridgetown to St. Thomas, a distance of 44 miles, and that these two railways only varied in distance from each other, from a few rods at the minimum to about four miles at the maximum. The government gave that bonus on condition that the Lake Erie Company could not secure adequate running rights over the Michigan Central. When the ex-minister stated that the proposed line from Quebec to Moncton would parallel the Intercolonial Railway, I am sure that my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) was one of those who applauded. And yet, in 1899 when the Lake Erie and Detroit River bonus was under consideration, the hon. member for Mr. EMMERSON.
Bothwell moved to strike out the proviso in the resolution, so that the bonus would be given without any condition being attached. He not only spoke, but I find by reference to ' Hansard ' that he was on his feet thirty times in his efforts to have that proviso struck out. More than that, he divided the House on the question. He claimed that the fact that the railway was ruuinng alongside of another was no reason why the government of Canada should withhold aid if it were serving the interests of the coup-try. I will not take up the time of the House in quoting from the speeches in that connection. One of the reasons he advanced why there should be no conditions, was that the Lake Erie road afforded an outlet to the lake shore townships; and yet hon. gentlemen opposite claim that the railway now under consideration, going eastward in the same direction as the Intercolonial, should not be aided by the government of Canada, even though it affords an outlet for the rich and unlimited products of our western country. Then, the Canadian Pacific Railway line was chartered from Toronto to Windsor, although from London to Windsor it runs less than two miles from the Grand Trunk Railway, and for a considerable portion of the way these two railways run side by side like a double track. That principle has been established throughout the Dominion time and time again; it has been established in this parliament; and yet this objection is brought forward as something that should constrain the parliament of Canada to prevent the construction of an all-Canadian railway to Canadian seaports. In the case to which I have referred, my hon. friend from Bothwell urged the repeal of the condition upon which the subsidy was granted, even though the two railways ran practically between the same fences, whereas in the case before us there is beginning a short distance from Levis a range of hills separating the two railways entirely. The Intercolonial serves a very good purpose on the northern slope of these hills, and the proposed railway will serve a like good purpose in furnishing facilities to the residents of the country on their southern slope.
I have referred to the paralleling of the Intercolonial Railway by the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The hon ex-Mlnister of Railways and Canals, speaking of paralleling, claims that this railway will dismantle the Intercolonial Railway, and the words are repeated by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). While the hon. gentleman wishes to take very high moral ground in reference to this question, he does not refrain from indulging in a line of argument which I consider is a very great descent from the high moral altitude which lie had assumed. He has referred to the construction of the proposed railway as a dismantling of the Intercolonial Railway, and he has claimed that it will not only

injure the traffic of the road, but will simply depopulate the city of Moncton, where the workshops of the Intercolonial Railway are situated. It is all very well to offer an argument of that kind, but it must be based upon such facts as will support it. The hon. member, in the days when he was Minister of Railways and Canals, did not refuse to bonus a railway running from the town of Campbellton, N.B., crossing through the province, and connecting at the St. John river with the Bangor and Aroostook. The railway to which I refer is known as the Restigouche and Western. It commences at Campbellton and runs up the waters of the Restigouche to Matapedia ; thence up the Restigouche to the Upsal-quiteli, thence westerly to the waters of the Tobique river, which it crosses; thence to St. John river at or near Edmundston ; on the other side of the river it connects with what is known as the Bangor and Aroostook Railway system, which communicates with the city of Bangor, in the state of Maine, and thence with the city of Boston by the Maine Central. If the aiding of railways in New Brunswick would injure the Intercolonial Railway, there never was aid given to a railway that would do more damage to the Intercolonial Railway than that one. Because, what was the object of that railway ? It was in order that the people living at Campbellton and along the shores of the Baie des Chaleurs down to the Gasp6 coast should be brought nearer to the American market. They send their fish, their lumber and all their other products to the American market. They seek such a market over the Intercolonial by way of Levis and across through Vermont. This line when completed will afford them railway facilities direct through New Brunswick and through to the state of Maine to the cities on the American seaboard. And yet there was no cry against that railway on the ground of injury to the Intercolonial. The necessities of trade and the interests of the people, it was deemed, demanded its construction, and no cry of that kind was raised. But because to-day, from a national standpoint, it is deemed necessary to have a trunk line of railway from the east to the west, forsooth the Intercolonial must stand as a barrier against it, even though the Intercolonial may not be in a position in any way to carry out the objects designed by the project under discussion.
In this connection, I might say that the lion. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, when he made the statement as to this road dismantling the Intercolonial, neglected to explain to this House that a few years ago he, as Minister of Railways and Canals? entered into a contract with the Grand Trunk Railway Company whereby that company, for a period of ninety-nine years, or during the existence of that contract, should hand over to the Intercolonial Railway the freight which they gathered in the western
country which is tapped by the Grand Trunk. This freight was to be handed over at Ste. Rosalie or at Montreal, and he failed to inform the House that although the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway may be projected into the maritime provinces, although the section between Quebec and Moncton may be completed and in operation, yet that traffic thus covenanted to be given over to the Intercolonial Railway by the Grand Trunk Railway at Ste. Rosalie and at Montreal must continue to be given to it during ninety-nine years or during the continuance of that agreement. Then will the establishment of this line take away one jot or title of the freight which the Intercolonial Railway receives from the west to-day V By no means. Did he tell the House that the traffic, which is to be carried by the proposed line of railway between Moncton and Winnipeg, is a traffic which is not yet in existence ? Did he say that the Intercolonial Railway receives to-day or has ever received any portion of the traffic from the extreme west ? He knows that the Intercolonial Railway has never received such traffic. He knows that although we have spent millions in the extension of the line from L6vis to Montreal, it was not designed to get traffic from Manitoba and the Territories but to get the Ontario traffic. The object was to get the Intercolonial Railway into the metropolitan city of Canada,' to gather there all the freight possible from the province of Ontario and carry it over the Intercolonial Railway. It was a very wise scheme which time has justified. But this project will in no way interfere with that traffic.	Supposing this line were built
from Winnipeg to Quebec and stopped there, do you think that the Intercolonial Railway would ever receive any portion of the traffic brought from Winnipeg to Quebec ? Only one who. is insane would think so for a moment. We'know that it would not. But what we do know is that the construction of this new line from Quebec to Moncton will add to the prospects of the Intercolonial Railway getting a portion of that traffic. From the city of Moncton to Halifax and St. John, there must be necessarily an increase of traffic by reason of the construction of a short line to Moncton. When the traffic has been brought to Moncton, it must go thence either to St. John or Halifax; and the strong probabilities are that it will necessitate the construction of another track between Moncton and Halifax. Nor did the hon. gentleman say anything with respect to the traffic that may come from the west, and which can continue over the Intercolonial Railway as far as Truro and then down to Sydney. All this shows that the hon. gentleman was endeavouring to excite the animosities, prejudices and passions of the people of Moncton. The people of that city have pronounced unanimously in favour of the project before us; and as a representative of the county of

Westmoreland and having some knowledge of the neighbouring counties, I say that the people are to a man almost unanimously in favour of the construction of this line. They realize what benefits will come from it. They realize that Canada requires to-day a transcontinental line truly Canadian, and they know that the only way to have that is by carrying out to its full fruition the project under discussion.
There is another feature which the hou. gentleman held up as a menace. The shops at Moncton, he predicted, are to be demolished. Well, Sir, the shops of Moncton were there almost to the same extent as they are to-day before the Intercolonial Itail-wav was extended from Levis to Montreal. And engines are now being built at the machine shops connected with the Intercolonial Railway at Moncton. The hon. gentleman knows that the necessities of the road will require that to be continued. He knows further that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway itself will require a terminal at Moncton. He knows that Moncton will be doubled in population in the next ten years by virtue of this scheme. He knows that the train hands by the hundred reaching that terminal point at Moncton will have to build homes there. He knows that workshops will have to be established there, and yet he tries to excite the passions and prejudices of the people of that city. He desired to have a line from Riviere du Loup over a 1,300 feet summit down to St. John by the valley of the St. John river, and he appeals to the prejudices of that city because forsooth this scheme does not contemplate such a line. The Intercolonial Railway, he says, is to be injured by a railway from Quebec to Moncton. But according to the hon. gentleman, the Intercolonial Railway would not be in any way injured by the construction of a line from the city of Quebec to St. John. Although he has the welfare of the Intercolonial Railway at heart to such an extent that he resigned his position and would almost go to death for it, he voted in the Railway Committee to have a line established and constructed by the Grand Trunk Railway from Quebec to St. John. But if any railway would injure the Intercolonial Railway, such a railway would do it, because no portion of its traffic could by any possibility go over any part of the Intercolonial Railway.
And in that very attitude, it seems to me, he shows an inconsistency which would almost lead one to conjecture that the real cause of his resignation was not the building of another line from the city of Quebec to the maritime provinces. If it is wrong to build to the city of Moncton because of the Intercolonial Railway interest, it would be doubly wrong to build from the city of Quebec to the city of St. John, because it would add to that damage tenfold, aye, a hundred fold. I utterly and absolutely deny that there would be any diminution of the


Henry Robert Emmerson: traffic now enjoyed .by the Intercolonial. The western traffic does not come to the Intercolonial to-day. What traffic is handed over by the Grand Trunk, under agreement, to the Intercolonial will continue. And I say there will be no diminution of the local traffic between L6vis and the city of Moncton. I have greater faith in my own province than to even harbour a suspicion that there will be any diminution of that traffic. Take the great fisheries of the Baie des Ghaleurs, take the great and flourishing Miramichi distinct, with its untold wealth of timber and its great fisheries at the mouth of the Miramichi and down all along the north shore. Are these to be wiped out because, forsooth, there is a short line of railway established in the interest of Canada between Quebec and the city of Moncton ? I say nay. I say that the development of the north shore is only in its infancy. I say that the increased value of timber lands in that section of the province, the great output of lumber, the establishing of industries based upon the great mineral wealth along that line, will all tend to make the Intercolonial what it is destined to be, a blessing, not merely to those living along the line, but to all New Brunswick, and, to an extent and proportionately, to the whole Dominion. I do not think that the Intercolonial has ever had a better friend than I, in my humble way, have endeavoured to be. And I would be very sorry indeed, by act, or vote, or word, to do anything that would in any way interfere with the prosperity of the Intercolonial Railway or the people along its line. I recognize that the Intercolonial has done more for Canada than any other agency. It has cemented the eastern and western provinces together as nothing else has been able to do. But I say also that the establishment of this new line will clamp together as in a vice the western and eastern provinces. It will make it possible for the people in the extreme east to exchange their products with the people of the west, to their mutual aa-vantnge. It will not merely bring us the products of the western prairies, but it will take back to the people there the manufactured products of such centres as Sydney, Halifax, St. John and Moncton. Why, I know as a verity that, to-day, in the city of Moncton, there is an industrial establishment which has increased its capitalization from a quarter of a million to a million of dollars. And with what object? With the object of manufacturing in their line of industry for the extreme west. They are already establishing a branch in the city of Montreal and another branch in the city of Winnipeg. And this railway bringing the. city of St. John two hundred miles nearer to the city of Quebec and to the city of Montreal, and bringing the city of Moncton at least one hundred and forty miles nearer to the city of Montreal, will enable this company, as" it will enable others, to carry on their

business to greater advantage. And surely these are considerations which should move us. I am willing, even if we did not gain any local benefit at all, to vote in favour of the people of Canada contributing of their means for the building of a national highway through our own territory to our own ports. I am not voting or speaking in any selfish or local spirit. But I do realize that the advantage to be gained through this road will be mutual ; I realize that the greater facilities for transportation that It will offer to the producer of the west and the manufacturer of the east, will enrich every section of the country and the country as a whole.
There is one thing to which I feel I should make reference, although I do so with some hesitation, because I know, that, in a sense, the matter is treated as merely academic. Those who have paid any attention to the course which I have pursued in relation to this railway project, if any have done me the honour to observe that course, will know that I have advocated, not merely in this House, but in the Railway Committee, the extension of the Intercolonial Railway into the west and the operation of railways by government. The government owning and operating that road could assemble the western traffic, bring it to the city of Quebec, and pass it along over their Intercolonial Railway, even at the longer haul, assuring to our own eastern ports that traffic, even thougli this were done at a loss. I was honest in my conviction, and am very strongly in favour of the ownership and operation of railways by governments. But I found that when I made that suggestion, even before the Railway Committee, it did not meet with any hearty response from any section. I did not find hon. gentlemen opposite very enthusiastic in then-approval of that idea. And I have had sufficient experience in public life to realize quite clearly that, however Strong the view I may entertain, however conscientious, sincere and earnest I may be, my view cannot prevail against the views of the majority. Government is a matter of compromise, and when we could not have that which I advocated, as I stated before that committee when this matter was being discussed, I accepted the next best thing, and I considered that the next best thing was the government construction and ownership of the spout from the wheat fields of the west to the shores of the Canadian Atlantic.
Now, what does that accomplish ? It insures the regulation of rates, it insures a control over the traffic, it makes it possible for the government, while not suffering the disadvantages of government operation, to enjoy the other advantages incident to the government ownership and operation of railways. I realized this when that measure came before the committee. It will be remembered that the proposition was to build a railway from the west to
the city of Quebec, where it was to stop ; arl,l I realized that if that were done the maritime seaports during the winter months would not in any sense participate in the traflic that would be brought through. Why? Because it would be a company-owned road and a company-operated road down to the city of Quebec, which port they would utilize- during the season of navigation, and that at the close of the season they would seek ports more to their advantage, even though those ports were in the United States.


Gilbert White Ganong: Could they not be tied up just the same ?
Mr. EMMEItSON. They are tied up already, and there are provisions in the lease which will bind them hand and foot so that they cannot do more than that. We have done more, we have not merely tied them up by reason of what is contained in that contract, but we have made it to their interest to bring this traffic over to the maritime provinces. It would not be to their interest, having reached the city of Quebec, if they were obliged to pass over the Intercolonial, or if they were to have themselves running rights over the Intercolonial, it would hot be to their advantage or interest to carry their freight some 600 or 700 miles when they could dump it right on board ship within 300 or 400 miles. But by building this short line we bring them 200 miles nearer to one of the best seaports in the maritime provinces, a seaport that is now being utilized to the advantage of the Canadian Pacific Railway and to the advantage of Canada ; I refer to the port of St. John. By the operation of this Bill we bring that seaport 200 miles nearer to the seaport of Quebec and the proposed terminus of the road; therefore, we enable this company to take its produce from Quebec to St. John, which they would not do if it were a matter of passing it over the Intercolonial.
Now, I discriminate between the Intercolonial being extended at the expense of Canada, and bringing freight down over the Intercolonial to the seaport; I realize the distinction between that and a company-owned road which stopped at Quebec and then attempted to use the Intercolonial with respect to its winter traffic. Realizing that,
I feel that the present arrangement is one that brings to the Canadian people practically all the advantages of government ownership, and it removes from the people the disadvantages which are incident, certainly in the opinion of many members on both sides of this House, to the government operation of railways. Now, this question of government ownership is one of vast importance, and I know how strongly the people in my own section of the country feel in favbur of that idea. I am also conscious of the disadvantages connected with it. I know that while the govern-

meat could own the road and perhaps operate it to the city of Winnipeg, yet when they came to operate a road from Winnipeg westward they would be met with obstacles which are, as they have been presented to us, almost insurmountable. Take the history of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In order to make their railway successful they have been obliged to establish hotels all along the line. Every one who has gone over that line through the Rockies and around the prairies, has found in all the' large cities hotels established and run by the Canadian Pacific Railway corporation. Could a government do that? There is not enough elasticity in government mangemeut to enable a government to do that. It would be necessary also, having reached the extreme west, to establish a line of steamships for the Orient. Would it be possible for the government to engage in operations of that kind? I know the difficulty which has been experienced in government management of the Intercolonial. If a new business were proposed to be established along the line of the Intercolonial, or if it were necessary Jo seek some concessions necessary, creating business for that road, some rates that would be reasonable, some provisions to make connections, the first thing the promoter of that scheme would do would be to come to the general manager and explain it. The general manager would say, I will consult the Minister of Railways and Canals. He would consult the Minister of Railways and Canals, and perhaps after a long period of time, the matter having been forgotten, another interview would be arranged, the promoter, the minister and the manager would meet together, and perhaps they would finally arrange upon some plan. But time would go on, parliament would have to be consulted, the proposals would be made by the minister, opposition would come from hon. gentlemen opposite, who would look with suspicion upon them, who would criticise them and oppose them, with the result that the man, wearied by the delay, would perhaps go over and make an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Why, Sir, I know that has been the case in many instances. I remember an occasion when there was a derelict vessel in the port of Halifax not able to carry its cargo to the destination, and application was made-this was some years ago- to the management at Moncton for a rate that would enable them to take that cargo by railway to its destination. The reply came back from Moncton, we will refer to Ottawa. It was referred to Ottawa, and six months afterwards a reply came to the city of Halifax. Is that elasticity ? Does that show that government management of railwavs is of a satisfactory character ? We realize the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway and other great railway organizations have a corps of specialists going


Henry Robert Emmerson: through the territory through which then-railways run, instructing the farmers in the establishment and operation of creameries and dairies with the object of creating a traffic for these roads, advocating the interests of the railways, it is true, but, incidentally advancing the interests of the country at the same time. They are in this manner building up and advancing the trade of the country. Could the government do that ? Would the government do it ? Strong as I am in favour of government ownership, I recognize the advantages incident to the operations of corporations in that direction. In the province of New Brunswick the gentleman who has been for a period superintendent of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Oborne-I think he has since been removed-has actually had established a stock farm or depot for the purchase of cattle in order that the railway should have the benefit of transporting these cattle to the ranches of the west, as was indicated by the hon. Minister of the Interior in his speech. That industry is being carried ou to-day by the Canadian Pacific Railway in New Brunswick. I know, as a matter of fact, that when I was connected with the government of New Brunsick. the superintendent of the Canadian Pacific Railway frequently consulted the government in respect to the assistance that should be afforded in the establishment of dairies and creameries, in building up traffic along the line, and in the creation of traffic, and I am glad to say that in some slight measure, at least, the government was then, as it has been since that day, in a position to aid in the upbuilding of that traffic. It is all necessary, and while government ownership has its advantages there are connected with it some disadvantages which we should not lose sight of. However, I have felt that when you cannot get the best thing, or What you think the best thing in the interests of your constituents and in the interests of the country, it is always wise to accept the next best thing, and I am proud that this scheme involves all the elements that it does. I think, while it has been described ns a liy-bred scheme, it is one that combines the advantages of government ownership, escaping its disadvantages, with the advantages of private ownership where private ownership can help to build up the country in a way in which the government could not do, thereby developing the trade of the country, opening up the country colonizing the country and in every way conducing to the advantage of the country. Our country is so great, its resources so varied and exhaustless and there are so many new things to be done, that it makes this problem of public ownership a very difficult one indeed, and if you can combine the advantages of the one with those of the other you have surely measureably gone in the direction of solving the problem. It is not an easy one. The whole question is one of

such eollosal importance that you cannot simply bind yourself hand and foot to a question of government ownership. I wonder how many hon. gentlemen opposite there are who would subscribe to that doctrine. I wonder if the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) would follow the leadership of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals in the direction of pubilc ownership. The hon. ex-minister in speaking of this subject, spoke with a vehemence and with a passion in his onslaught on the government which did not characterize his speeches in times past in this parliament when defending the government. Strong advocate though he has been of government ownership, he was yet willing, as shown by the letter he wrote to the right hon. leader of the government, that this scheme should be aided in its entirety to Quebec from the west in the same way that it has been aided on the western sections. As I understand it, although opposed to the scheme as it has been modified, he was willing that there should be a subsidy given in that direction and that the road should be under the control of the Grand Trunk Pacific. He was willing to accept that as an alternative. Surely, as an advocate of government ownership, if he got the measure of government ownership which this scheme provides he should have been willing to have accepted it in its entirety ; with its features of private ownership with government aid by way of a guarantee. I feel that I have perhaps wearied this House in the discussion of this question, which, as X intimated a few moments ago, may be considered an academic) one, but, we must remember that we are making history. We must remember that we are establishing a principle which may be followed in future years and that it is well for us not to lose sight of the main discussion as to whether we have followed a proper and expedient course, because, after all, this question of public ownership is a question of expediency. The scheme which has been agreed upon by the government is one which they deem to be expedient in the interests of the country. In it they combine the two systems. The old system has passed away in its entirety, the new system has been ushered in, and we must understand as to where that new system will lead us. It would be a matter of impossibility for Canada to acquire all the present systems/ of railway, and to operate them. The government could not undertake to conduct their vast operations by direct agency nor could it be expected to extend the service with the rapidity which would be needful. The question perhaps after all may be ranged with that of the speculative as to government ownership, but we have to inquire as to whether we are not having by the proposed scheme many of the advantages if not all the advantages that must be secured to us if Canada were in a position to acquire all 274
the other systems of railways now within its borders, or leaving that alone, leaving that as too colossal a thing to undertake, if Canada were undertaking to make this new road a government road from east to west. There is, not only in the rapid advancement which displays itself on every hand, not only in the methods of industrial production, but in the aims and aspirations of our people, justification for the departure which has already been made and for the policy adopted by the government in this connection.
How much further the trend of events may lead us in this direction, only the future can disclose. But certainly, as representatives of the people we must realize that in going so far we have taken a step in advance, and accomplished some good to the people of Canada. It has been said that private opinions and judicial utterances are at one in concluding that railways are on a plane with the highways of the country. So they are, but only in a sense, because the highway can be used and operated and taken advantage of indiscriminately, whereas, the railway has to be controlled in its operation, and to that extent there is a vast difference between them. At all events, it behooves the people of Canada to consider the matter from the economic point of view, and considered in that light there is only one answer-from an economic standpoint thi's scheme is unrivalled. It gives government aid and support, and yet it does not inflict burdens on the people; in other words, it lends government credit to a government controlled road, although not a government operated road. There are so many objections to government operation of railways, as we saw in the discussion before the committee, that those who hold views in favour of government ownership and coutrol may very well hesitate as to the soundness of these views. The political objections to government operation are very great. I can see at once the weight of these objections, and though they are not easily answered, yet there are answers to them. The danger of party control is not in my judgment so serious after all. It certainly is not sufficiently serious to enable us to decide the question on that consideration alone, and especially when we take into consideration the fact that we must all recognize that large railway corporations have a great political influence. By this scheme of the government we have curbed to a certain extent the political influence that may be exercised by private corporations. Look at the history of the Canadian Pacific Railway. We built the Canadian Pacific Railway, we equipped it, we paid for it, we gave them the money to run it, and they have been running it and making their millions, but the country does not own one cent in it. We all must recognize the influence which that great corporation has wielded: in Canada since 1881. Its influence is felt to-day; its influence I believe is being felt in the discussion of



this question in parliament, and its influence lias been felt since tlie project was first spoken of in the newspapers. Of course, under private ownership there is competition, hut there are also formidable evils. There is the possibility of discrimination in favour of the few as against the many. How many times has this parliament considered the question of discrimination, not merely as between individuals in the matter of tariff rates, but as between communities; as between the long haul and the short haul; as between the carriage of wheat and the carriage of flour; as between the interests of the east as compared with the middle east in connection with freight rates; as between the interests of the west as compared with the middle west; as between local communities and as between those living in the same community ? All these difficulties are incidental to private ownership, and these evils are curbed, controlled, and regulated by this scheme which the government has asked parliament to approve of. The existence of secret and preferential rates on the railways has been such in the past that they have militated against the interests of the country; they have militated against our industrial advancement; they have militated against the industrial advancement of particular communities, and they have created havoc to private enterprise. This scheme which we are now considering, in a measure controls these things, allied as it is with the legislation introduced by the government in the Railway Commission Bill.
Another disadvantage of private ownership lies in the precarious securities which are floated upon the market, and the injury that ensues in financial circles. These securities are ' beared ' and are ' bulled,' and to-day a railway stock may have an apparent value which to-morrow may have dropped to zero. The scheme proposed by the government is such that there cannot be any such fluctuation of values in connection with it. We know the havoc that nas resulted in the United States in connection with speculation in railway stocks. This will be prevented by the government guarantiees because we know that government guarantees have an established value and do not fluctuate between extremes. There is a confidence in them on the part of the people which tends to the preservation of their financial standing. That is something, that ought not to be overlooked in Canada.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, at the hour of recess I was referring to the relationship between government ownership and private ownership, and their relative effects upon railway securities. X was showing that by reason of the sudden and extreme changes in the quotations of railway stocks, Mr. EMMERSON.
there was in private ownership danger of a disturbance in financial circles ; and I was pointing out that by the scheme propounded by the government this danger was removed, in as much as the securities placed on the market had a government guarantee, and were therefore more stable and less fluctuating. But this perhaps is a field that should be traversed by the moralist or the economist; and while it may be food for thought for us, it comes more properly within the purview of their inquiry. There is one thing in connection' with government ownership which I am sure is apparent to all, that is, that government service necessarily costs more in proportion than private service. I think hon. members of this House without distinction of party will concede that ; and to that extent it is an argument against public ownership, and certainly against the government operation of railways. Given the same efficiency in management, the same energy and economy-and all this must be assumed-there certainly could not be any objection to the government operation of railways. Another feature of tlie government embarking in a general scheme of ownership of our lines of railway would be the questions that might arise in the future as to the construction of additional lines and of branch lines. There would also be involved, by reason of the pressure that might bo exercised upon parliament, the question of the duplication of railway lines. There might be too tight a rein exercised, or it might be too free. It would all depend on the political pressure that would be brought to bear. To the extent that this might operate either in the one direction or the other, it would be productive of injury to the public interest. You could not be too stinted ; and it would not be in the public interest to have too free a hand. The interest of communities not served by railways, or not having the advantages of government lines, would always be brought to the front and parliament would be besieged time and again for the duplication of lines, in order that these communities might share in the advantages of government-owned railways. All this would be launched into the arena of political warfare. Even the fair adjustment of rates as between different communities, and the rates that could fairly be charged upon the different articles of traffic, would be a football for political parties. That would be a matter of the highest consequence, as there would be depending upon it commanding commercial interests. Of course, we must all look to the future to furnish a more acute condition with respect to railway rates. Such will become more and more controlling, as modern industrial methods are applied and perfected, as business is conducted on a more expansive scale, and with a lessening margin. This feature is not an alarming one, perhaps, and should not be considered as very serious at the

moment, and yet it is one the importance of which should not he minimized. Another argument which is advanced against government ownership, one in which I do not share very largely, is that it restricts the held of private activity, and narrows the scope for individual effort and achievement. A test of the utility of public ownership by the experience of other countries affords nothing convincing either one way or the other. If you take as illustrations the cases of Europe, Australia, or Africa, all of them presenting different conditions, you find nothing to convince you. In the older countries such as Switzerland, Germany and France, the results achieved are certainly not convincing. They are not on the whole against government ownership. Taking the experience of South Africa and the different states in the Australian commonwealth, and of New Zealand, you have nothing that is positive. But, we could not he governed by the results there, even if they were very marked and convincing, as their conditions are entirely different from ours. It makes no difference whether the government is monarchical or democratic ; the results vary with the conditions. In England we recognize the fact of private ownership; but the prevailing geographical conditions have governed the policy pursued by that country. Each railway in Great Britain seems to serve a certain area ; each railway has its own particular sphere of influence ; and the same difficulties are not presented in that country that are to be found in Canada and the United States.
Now, Six-, I am sure that I would not be doing justice to the House if I were to pursue this subject further. I have simply touched on the fi-inge of the subject, and I leave it to be elaborated by hon. members for themselves. But there is one thing I do wish to say, and that is in connection with the proposition made by the hon. ex-Miuister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) in x-egai-d to the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to the Geoi-gian bay, in order that that railway might participate in the traffic which comes over the lakes. I have a strong sympathy with that idea : but, I i-ecognize that this scheme is in no sense a barrier to the final carrying out of that great project. It in no way affects the future in that connection. The government of Canada will be free-it may be in the remote future, or it may be within a i-easonable distance from now-if it deems that coui-se wise in the interests of Canada, to acquix-e a railway connecting with the present system of government railways. That may be for the future to determine ; but if I can at all judge of the disposition of parliament to-day, I do not think it would be possible to cari-y such a scheme through. But the day may come when it will be in the interests of Canada that it shall be done. However, those living in the maritime provinces must recognize that if that scheme 274J
were carried out, it would not mean the carrying of the traffic fi-om the lakes to our seaports in wintei-. It would simply mean that ti-affic would be carried fi-om the lakes during the summer season down to the port pf Quebec, and it would in no sense have a relationship with the px-esent system of i-ailways in the maritime provinces.
Passing from that subject, 1 ask the pardon of the House if I refer again to the route between Quebec and Moncton. I have observed the criticism to the effect that surveys had shown that thei-e are impenetrable barriers obstructing that route. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals referred to a survey made by an enginner by the name of Davey. The hon. gentleman l-efers to a route extending from Riviere 'du Loup diagonally and in a south-easterly direction across the pi-ovince of New Bx-unswick to the valley of the River St. John. The survey which was made by Mr. Davey was not -I would ask the House and the country to remember that-a survey over the present route back of L6vis down to the valley of St. John near Connors station, and thence following that valley to Edmundston, and thence on down reaching Chipman. It is not a survey of that route, but has reference to a route across the divide, from the shores of the St. Lawrence to the valley of the River St. John ; and undoubtedly any engineer would experience difficulty in'.the crossing of this divide, whether in the province of Quebec or whether an attempt were made to cross diagonally through the New Bx-unswick ax-ea. There is a number of divides, and I shall xxot weary the House with naming them, but that is a px-oposition distinct from the one under consideration. The illustration I gave last evening with respect to the Temiscouata route bears out what has been stated by Mr. Davey regarding his survey. The Temiscouta meets one of these barriers in its route to Edmundston, but the proposed line of railway at Quebec goes back of that divide. It does not run diagonally, but follows through the valleys until it reaches the valley of the St. John. It has no divides to cross, and when it reaches the St. John river it follows that river down until there 'is a natural opening, leading across to the valley of the Tobique. Then there is a river with an unpronounceable name, a tributary of the Tobique, and through the valley of that river you go until you come to a tributary of the Miramiclii, and you follow that until you go on to Chipman, and thence to Monctoxx. You cx-oss none of these divides, and the engineers to whom I have referred say that that route is a splendid one, that they are not obliged to cross any of these barriers, and it is practicable, in every sense of the word, from a commercial standpoixxt. Therefore, the criticisms which have been made in that connection are wholly unwarrantable.
I would be pardoned perhaps if I give to

the House some distances in connection with the route which may be followed to reach the city of St John or Moncton, commencing at Quebec. In the first place, we have the present route of the Canadian Pacific Railway to St. John through Maine. I commence at Quebec because that is the starting point of the proposed Quebec and Moncton section. Going over the present route of the Canadian Pacific Railway from the city of Quebec by way of Megantic, thence on down to Mattawampkeag and to Vance-borough and Macadam to the city of St. John, you travel a distance of 422 miles. If you were to travel over the route from Chaudiere by the Intercolonial Railway to Riviere du Loup, from Riviere du Loup, by the Temiscouata road, to Edmundston, then from Edmundston to Woodstock, and from Woodstock_to Macadam, and thence to St. John, you would travel 452 miles, or 30 miles longer than the present route by the Canadian Pacific Railway between Quebec and St. John. If you were to travel over what is known as the St. John Valley Railway-the one which was advocated by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) last evening-you would start at Chaudifire to reach RiviSre du Loup, a distance of 123 miles, thence to Edmundston, 81 miles, from Edmundston to Newburg Junction, 109, from Newburg Junction to Fredericton, 59, and from Fredericton to St. John, 67 miles, or a total distance of 430 miles. Then there is another route, starting from ChaudiSre by the back country-I mean the country back of Levis-to Connor station, and thence to Edmundston and Fredericton, by the river route on the west side of the St. John river, and thence to St. John, you would travel a distance of 403 miles. Showing clearly that if St. John were your objective point, going by the proposed route of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to the city of Fredericton, by the river valley, you would travel a distance of 403 miles. Then there is the route, which was surveyed in 1890 by surveyors of the Temiscouata and the Grand Trunk Railway Companies. The distance by that route to the city of St. John will be 383 miles, going down by Chipman, showing conclusively that by the route proposed, the central route by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to reach St. John you would travel a shorter distance, by at least 17 miles, than you would have to travel by any of the other routes which I have mentioned.
Now, this must be borne in mind that by the Intercolonial Railway from Chaudiere to Moncton, the distance is 488 miles, or nearly that, and to the city of St. John by the Intercolonial Railway is 89 miles. I was informed only very recently by an official of the Intercolonial Railway that the actual mileage from Moncton to the	city of St.	John is ninety.
That makes the whole distance from Chau-diSre to the city of St. John, by way of Mr. EMMERSON.
Moncton and the Intercolonial Railway 588 miles. So, if the route projected is followed, the central route through the province of New Brunswick by way of Chip-man to St. John, you have a saving of distance of at least 200 miles in round numbers, bringing the winter seaport at present used, nearer by that distance to the city of Quebec than it is now by way of the Intercolonial. Surely that is a matter of consideration, a matter of importance, not merely to the citizens of St. John, but to the people of the west and to the people of all Canada in view of the vast traffic that must exist in years to come, indeed a matter of supreme importance, and one that the parliament of Canada should not disregard at this stage. All this shows that the government has been wise in selecting this route and that, even without regard to sectional opinion, without regard to the interest of this or that local community, the aim and object of the government has been to afford facilities in the interest of all Canada. It is claimed that the government should build branch lines from the different points. I say it would not be in the interest of Canada as a whole that this should be done. While personally, as a citizen of New Brunswick, I should like to see such a branch line from Chipman, connecting at Norton for the city of St. John, yet I do not think that that would be a matter of interest to the people of all Canada. If this were done there, it would have to be done at other points. Trade will seek Its appropriate channel, and, according to my idea, the appropriate channel for heavy freight traffic from the west to the Canadian seaboard in winter is the route I have named. The company have taken power and authority to make connection with St. John, and it will inevitably follow that that connection will be made. And it is in the interest of all Canada that she should have it. More than that, it will be in the interest of the Grand Trunk itself, because it will be in their interest to get the best, the closest possible connection and run by the best and shortest route. Now, all this question of route is one which must be determined by the engineers. I recognize the fact that distance is not the only elenient to be taken into consideration. Gradients, curvatures and alignment of the road are of equal importance. They are all of supreme importance in considering the necessities of modern railway transportation. The road must be of a character to allow traffic with the heavy engines and immense trains which are seen on our great systems throughout Canada and the United States. There is another thing which must not be lost sight of, and that is that whatever the railways cost under this scheme, the expenditure will be among the Canadian people and upon Canadian soil. I am sure that will not be lost sight of by the people of Canada when they come to determine upon this question,

when it is submitted to them for their approval.
I fear that I have wearied the House in going over so much and repeating, as I have been obliged to do, a great deal of what has been said before, and very much better said. But 1 would like to emphasize this one point, that if you remove from this discussion the speech of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair)-and he built up his argument by taking an extreme view and using what I may characterize, without offence, as very extreme and extravagant language-you find that nothing has been said against the bargain that has been made between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific. I have listened to all the speeches delivered by the gentlemen on the other side, and they have in no sense assailed tiie bargain. They have not punctured it in even one little essential. The bargain is recognized to be in the interest of the people of Canada, and hon. gentlemen opposite cannot show to the contrary. If they have made any argument at all, it is against the character of the railway and the route. That is an argument which might have been used, and which may be used, by the shareholders of the Grand Trunk when they come to consider the question whether they will confirm and approve the agreement entered into with the government. Hon. gentlemen opposite have not even brought into issue the discussion of the benefits which are to accrue to Canada if this project is hrouaht to a successful completion. They have attempted in small ways to say the route is not the proper one. But bear in mind that that is a question that is to be determined by the engineers and by the government later on. The best route is to be followed, and the best course is to be taken, in attaining the object it is desired to attain. There was another feature. It had been heralded abroad that the government is doing an improvident thing in building the road from Winnipeg to Moncton and handing it over to the Grand Trunk Pacific under lease for fifty years. Hon. gentlemen opposite attempt'to excite the prejudices of the people by saying that the government is building this road and giving it to a company for a period of time. Now, they fail to tell the country that for the whole cost of that road no burdens will be placed upon the people, because the company will repay every dollar of interest after a certain period of time. And yet, while this impression is being-not made, but attempted to be made by hon. gentlemen opposite, my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) last night made a most remarkable statement. He said, speaking of that portion of the contract providing for the construction of the road between Winnipeg and Moncton, that the company would be glad to get rid of this section of the great transcontinental line.
Now, if this is a great boon to the company, and if we are asked to deplore
the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific is given a lease and management of the road for fifty years, surely the boon is to the company, else why the complaint ? Yet the hon. member for South Lanark says that the company will be glad to get rid of the obligation of running that road, will be glad to get free from that portion of the agreement. Surely these two positions are entirely inconsistent, surely hon. gentlemen are wrong in the one contention or in the other. It seems to me they are wrong when they claim that we ought not to give these powers to the Grand Trunk Pacific, because the Grand Trunk Pacific has entered into this agreement, and 1 feel sure that when men of the business skill, men having all the qualifications to carry on a great enterprise like this, are willing to enter into this agreement, it is because they expect to carry it through. Certainly, it is an agreement for the benefit of Canada. Sir, if there is one thing for which I shall have reason to be thankful for hereafter when I look back over my life, it will be that I had some little share in contributing towards this great achievement. I believe it will be a great achievement without any parallel heretofore in the history of Canada. I believe that it is the crowning achievement of a great life. I believe that Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the First Minister, when he comes to look back over his life, a life that has already been fruitful of great good to Canada, will look upon this as the crowning achievement of the most successful career in the history of Canada.


Mr. T. S. SPROTJLE (East Grey).: In attempting to occupy the time of the House in continuing this debate, I am aware of the fact that at the present stage of it I am unable to add anything very new, very spicy or very attractive. The ground has been travelled over so often, and the subject has been criticised so thoroughly, that I cannot hope to say very much new upon it at the present time. I had the pleasure of listening to an hon. gentleman that might be regarded above all others as the one who would be likely to give us some information as to the wisdom of this scheme, and its importance. I listened to him for the purpose of finding out the strongest arguments that could be advanced in favour of it by one who is said to be destined to fill the position lately occupied by the late Minister of Railways and Canals. I congratulate the country and his party as well upon the acquisition to their ranks when he reaches that post. The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) started out by saying that he was reluctant to speak unkindly of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, who had been in a measure his political godfather, who had brought him into public life, and to whom lie was largely indebted for whatever success he had achieved in political life. Yet I re-

gretted to notice that when the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) Intimated, as I think unfairly, that the exMinister of Railways and Canals might be in his place yet if he had been allowed the privilege of handling the contracts in connection with that road, he was cheered to the echo by my hon. friend from Westmoreland. I thought how unkind human nature is sometimes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman is incorrect in his statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then my eyesight must have deceived me, for I certainly thought X saw him cheer most vigorously that statement of the hon. member for North Norfolk, as well as many other statements criticising the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not want to be placed in any false position. The hon. gentleman, I am sure, will take my word when I say that I did not do so. If X had, I would readily acknowledge it, but I did not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Certainly I accept the hon. member's statement, because I do not wish to do him any injustice. But I do think, even if I had not credited him with that exhibition, that I saw quite enough last night and to-day to justify the same conclusion in the adverse criticisms that he has indulged in against the man to whom above all others he is indebted for his position in public life to-day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think perhaps the indebtedness is mutual.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, I am glad to know it. He referred to the hon. member for South I.anark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and said that his speech was characterized by a poverty of argument and a strength of assertion. Well, there is no doubt whatever, after listening to the variegated and kalei-descopic way in which he handled this subject, that it was at least very different from that of the hon. member for South Lanark. What I heard reminded me of one of my Celtic friends, who, I think, came from the place where the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Eraser) came from. He was located on a small ten-acre farm in our part of the country, and some of his neighbours who had moved out west, induced him to move to Manitoba. He went up there and bought a 50-acre farm, and when he came back he was asked how he liked it. He said that he enjoyed it very much, that it was so big that he could just wander over it all day like a goose enjoying himself. And so the hon. member for Westmoreland wandered over the subject, like that farmer who enjoyed himself wandering over his new farm so different from the one he had here. But whether the hon. gentleman contributed to the literature of the subject or the strength of the arguments advanced


Thomas Simpson Sproule: on that side, I will leave to the judgment of the country at large. He followed that up by saying that the total outlay to the country in connection with this scheme would not involve more than $13,000,000 or $14,000,000, and he referred to the statement made by the Minister of Finance as being absolutely correct. Now, it has always staggered my comprehension to understand how such a conclusion was reached, because every one admits that the government is bound to build the eastern section, and. according to the fairest calculations made with regard to the cost of that section, it ranges from $55,000,000 to $75,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite admit as well that the money must be borrowed by the government from some source, that it must be expended in the construction of that road, and then for them to say that we are going to incur an expenditure of only $13,000,000 or $14,000,000 on the whole undertaking from Moncton in the east to Port Simpson in the west, is something that I cannot understand. I want one of these hon. gentlemen to go up to the. province of Ontario, appeal to one of the Ontario farmers and try to convince him with that kind of reasoning. I am inclined to think that the farmer would answer this way :	I do not understand
your reasoning. If I were to apply your reasoning to one of the ordinary operations of life upon the farm it would be something like this. I have a farm. I want to improve that farm, I borrow a couple of thousand dollars, I put up a magnificent building upon my farm, I put up good fences upon it, I make roads, and I provide the other conveniences of life, but to do that I have to put a mortgage against my farm for $2,000. The interest upon this $2,000 at three per cent, will only cost me $60 a year. Therefore, all these improvements have only cost me practically $60. Now, he would say that if your reasoning is correct I do not owe anything on the mortgage, the mortgage will be paid by somebody, I do not know when or how, but I do not even concern myself about it, because if I take the intelligent reasoning of the hon. Minister of Finance I do not owe the amount of that mortgage, I only owe $60 a year. I have paid that, X have paid everything and in fact I have only incurred an expenditure of $60 to accomplish all that I have done. That argument would be just as reasonable and just as logical as the argument presented to this House, that this new railway scheme is to be accomplished and that we will only incur an expenditure of $13,000,000 or $14,000,000 and that that is all the country is committed to. That argument is not logical and will not hold water. The hon. member for Westmoreland said that the policy of the government is a revolutionary action in connection with this scheme. I agree with him that it is a revolutionary action. We have nothing to equal it. It is

something new. It at least lias the merit of novelty. Then the hon. gentleman went on to struggle with the question of whether the railway can be built through central New Brunswick and be referred to some engineer's report which he did not quote, who the engineer was he did not tell us, when -the survey was made is unknown to the House, as far as anything he told us was concerned ; yet he observed that it was a better route than could be found in any part of New Brunswick and that if the road were built by that route it would be a valuable one for trade. Throughout the whole of the hon. gentleman's argument I noted one thing. He came back again and a <.-a i n to the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and he said some very unkind things as to that hon. gentleman decrying his province stating that he had said that his province is a poor province, that the land in the centre of it is n >
good, that it contains mountains and valleys over which railways could not be run, but I noticed throughout his whole argument that the gray spectre which confronted him, the nightmare which was troubling his dreams was what the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals said 'in his argument in criticism of the Bill. He referred to that hon. gentleman seven times, but as soon as he took hold of the subject he dropped it as though it were a piece of hot iron. The thought that was passing through my mind was that he hesitated to proceed because of tlie consciousness of the ingratitude he displayed towards the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals or because he knew that there would be a day of retribution in the future. But, he came back to the subject again and again; it was like Banquo's ghost that would not down. He made seven attempts to down it but he did not succeed, and when he tackled it for the seventh time he was as unsuccessful in rebutting the arguments of the hon. ex-minister as he was upon the first attempt. He gave this House no argument whatever to refute the strong and logical statements made by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals that this project was a most unwise one and that it was one which was altogether uncalled for. I have said that the hon. member for Westmoreland went back seven times to deal with the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. He tackled the hon. member-for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) five times and he was quite as unfortunate in rebutting his arguments as in meeting those of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. Then he travelled over New Brunswick six times. He went on to tell us about the wealth of central New Brunswick, of northern New Brunswick, of southern New Brunswick, and of the Tobique valley, rich in mines, in clay, in forest and fisheries, but he never told us how a railway could be built across it by any except the one line which he advocated. Then he came back to northern Quebec and travelled over the country four times, and then he went from Levis down to Edmundston. He told us about the Laurentian range, about its geological formation on one side, about its flora, and how rich its trees were, and he told us that the other side of the Laurentian range was exactly the same. Then he led us away up to Lake St. John and told us about that beautiful sheet of water and went over the rich agricultural prospects of that region. Then, he said that all the other sheets of water were equally good for agricultural purposes west and north of that. I thought lie was going to supplant the Minister of Agriculture. Then, he brought us back again, travelled up the mountain and travelled down again and finally came to the question of the government ownership of railways. His speech reminded me of a trip that I took last fall to Rossland. Travelling over the Canadian Pacific Railway you leave Robson and you discover that the engineers have adopted a peculiar way of getting up these mountains. They had to overcome a rise of several hundred feet so they built the road up a little then back again and up a litle higher, then back again, and then a little higher still. You are carried upwards for a time and then you are carried back again.


Mr. COWAN.: Just like Jack and Jill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, something like Jack and Jill. You are carried back again on what is called the switch-back and each time you rise a little higher and the engine is puffing and panting and toiling ever on and up until it rises to the top of the mountain just like the hon. member for Westmoreland. He went back and forth seven or eight times until he led us up to the top of the mountain and when he looked down from it along the road there was nothing but hills upon hills, desolation and the remains of trees that had burned, under growth and vegetation which had come up afterwards. He said that there were rich mines below but we had not unearthed them yet, and he spoke of the unlimited wealth that we were likely to bring to light somewhere but he did not tell us where it was or when it was to occur, and in this performance I think he displayed a strong resemblance to the locomotive carrying us to the mountain top. He did not present one argument in favour of the contention which he was advancing and he left it a't last in despair. Then, last night he occupied the floor for forty-five minutes. He first gave us a very nice introduction and then he proceeded with a reading of thirty minutes duration. The reading was not very attractive, I suppose, because the light was bad. but after forty-five minutes he collapsed for want of breath or argument. I do not know which. He tackled it again this morning and he gave us another exhibition of his reading qualities and this was better because the light was better, but

he finally abandoned that and dealt with some other questions in a manner which he was pleased to represent to the House as argument.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) announced that there would be no difficulty whatever in building a railway through New Brunswick, but he could not exactly say where this railway was going. However lie thought it would reach St. John ultimately, indicating that St. John was the most important point for that railway to reach. \\ hen he spoke before in the House, he told us that the new railway would shorten the distance by 1200 miles, which was a much more generous estimate than that ventured by the Minister of Finance or others on that side, but to-day the member for Westmoreland did not risk saying how much the distance would be shortened. The hon. gentleman admitted that government ownership of railways was a failure and that the experience in European countries would show this, but at all events he was certain that any work done by the government would cost more than if done by private individuals. I could not help picturing the contrast between this language and the language he used in the Railway Committee, when he was strongly advocating the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay with the object of ultimately continuing it to the west. Then he was defending the scheme of the ex-Minister of Railways for all he was worth, but now that hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) and he are not In accord. I wonder whether the portfolio of Railways looming up in the distance had anything to do with so suddenly changing his logic and his arguments. The hon. member (Mr. Emmerson) also reminded us that he was painfully making history in his two-hours speech.' Well, we all know that he was doing something painfully, and if it was history he was making. I can tell him that it will never be read to the credit of himself or the party he supports in this project. It is history he will regret, and when generations yet unborn come to read it, they will treat it as a record of folly on the part of this government.


Samuel Hughes: Do you mean to say that any one yet unborn would read that speech ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Possibly they may read it out of curiosity. Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) was excusable if he had the idea that he was making history, but he certainly was grinding out history at a fearful cost to the finances of the country and the feelings of the people who listened to him.
The hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sil'ton) presented the strongest argument from the government benches in defence of this extraordinary scheme, and I wish to refer for a moment to what he did say. The most noticeable thing about his | Mr. SPROULE.
speech was the manner in which he dodged around knotty points. Here is an example which will serve as a fair illustration of his procedure. To strengthen his contention that it was desirable to have another all-rail route to the west, he quoted me as saying that if the lmssibilities and probabilities of that great west were realized, we might expect that there would be 400,000,000 bushels of grain to handle, and that to carry this it would take not one railway or two railways, but a dozen railways. He tried to justify himself from this statement, in his proposal to build another railway. I drew the minister's attention to the fact that this argument was very unfair to the member for East Grey, and that it had no foundation in fact. The truth is that what I did say was, that if the hopes of the people of the west were realized, as to the rapid influx of population to the west and the expansion of agricultural life, they would in time raise 400,000,000 bushels of grain, and if they required to have that immense quantity hauled within the two or three months between the commencement of the harvest and the closing of navigation, twelve railroads would not be able to .accomplish the task within that short period. I pointed out that it would be impossible to handle such a production of grain in the short time within which they are anxious to rush it out, and I went on to say that even suppose a dozen railways could do it, it would not be the part of wisdom for them to try to do it, because it would be unprofitable, Inasmuch as during the balance of the year these railways would be lying idle. That is a fair sample of the mode of argument which the Minister of the Interior pursued. He reminded me of the Artful Dodger in one of Dickens' novels. We know that the Artful Dodger was an adept in dodging around here and there, and making people believe there was something happening that never did happen ; one time he was in your pocket and.another time out of it, and again he was under your arm or behind your back, but you never could know exactly where to place him. The minister gave us a great many quotations, but if they were all as fallacious as those which I personally know to be fallacious, then we can pin very lijttle faith in his statements. He treated 'the member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) just in the same way as he treated the member for East Grey. His arguments were notoriously weak and notoriously unfair as well. The hon. minister proceeded to tell us that when a railway company applied to parliament for a charter, they didn't have surveys and plans and specifications. That may be true, but when they are applying for an Act of parliament they are not commencing to build the road, and before they spend a single dollar in construction they will have their plans and their surveys and their estimates made as to what the road will cost, and nil this information will be submitted

to the board of directors beforehand. Have we not a- right to ask the government to give us that information which the engineer of any railway company would give to his directors, before they would deem it wise or unwise to embark in the scheme. But he gave that as a reason why the government were justified in taking up this scheme without the information we ought to have to enable us to judge of it wisely.
He says he is prepared, as a matter of government policy, to liberally subsidize railways, even colonization railways. Well, we want to know where he stands on that question, because, so far as I can judge, the sentiment of the great agricultural classes of my province at least is opposed to subsidizing railways liberally ; and the hon. gentleman is not in accord either with the sentiment of the farmers of his own province, if I may judge by what I see in the press, nor the sentiment of the farmers of the province of Ontario. When the government give us a policy of this gigantic character, they ought to give us the information we desire to have.
The hon. gentleman, dealing with the objection that we cannot successfully have running powders over the line from Winnipeg to Moncton, said that was effectually disposed of by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). How did he dispose of it ? He told us that the Canada Southern and the Grand Trunk were running over the same section of road for 220 miles in western Ontario. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) pointed out the other night that while through freight might be carried over a short line of railway, it could not bp carried equally well over a long line, because it would be necessary to change the [DOT]engines and provide a fuel and water supply, a double set of hands, round houses for the storage of engines, and many other things, that would not be required on a sli rt line. The hon. Minister of the Interior reminds us that it was claimed that the railway might take through freight, but it could not take local freight, and he said the hon. member for North Norfolk had disposed of that by saying that he himself had shipped local freight on the line I have referred to. Did the hon. member for North Norfolk say that it was a matter of common occurrence that the people of the country could use that railway for handling local freight ? The hon. member for Hamilton declares that they do not ; the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), who lives in the locality, declares that they do not. Therefore, there is no conclusive argument to show that it is possible for the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to give running powers over 1,800 miles of railway to other companies.
The hon. gentleman went on to say that the arguments addressed to the House by the hon. member for Hamilton were futile, nbsurd and ridiculous-why ? Because he
said that if you parallel the Intercolonial, you are going to injure its earning powers. In answer to that the hon. gentleman declared that the earning powers of a railway are generally increased by the construction of another railway through the same part of the country ; and as an evidence of that he stated that the property of the Grand Trunk Railway was never so valuable until after the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, and therefore he expects us to conclude that if the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to Moncton is paralleled, its earning powers will not be impaired nor the value of the property reduced. Well, to say that is to say something that the experience of life does not bear out. We will suppose that there are 10,000 tons of freight from the west to be carried from L6vis to Moncton or St. John. If that is carried by one railway to-day and two railways carry it in the future, will the earnings of the two roads not be what were originally the earnings of one ? It is true, the freight will be somewhat increased ; but a portion of the freight of the first road is of necessity taken from it. If the development of the western country brought more freight to Quebec to be taken eastward, would it not be handled by the Intercolonial Railway, and would not the earnings of that railway be increased to that extent by this new7 road, if it is ever built, and if it is a success ?
The hon. gentleman refers to the statement that this policy is an abandonment of the government's policy in extending the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, and he holds that it is not, because the Intercolonial was not brought to Montreal to enable it to get a portion of the grain traffic from the w7est, but for the purpose of reaching one of the great commercial centres for commercial purposes. We were told, over and over again, when we purchased the Drummond Counties Railway and brought the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, that it wms for the purpose of increasing its earning powders by securing additional freight, so that instead of having deficits in the running of that railway, every year we wmuld have a surplus. Was not that the argument advanced by every hon. member on that side of the House ? I say it wms.
The hon. gentleman said that the first proposal of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, which was for a railway from North Bay to the west, was not a good scheme, and that he would not support it. Why wrould he not support it ? Because if that railway succeeded in bringing trade from the west, it was trade that was going to Portland. My answer is, could the government not just as well have made it a condition that the trade brought over that line should go over the Intercolonial in the future as to make the agreement we have to-day ? They could do it quite as easily and as effectually. That would make the Intercolonial a more valuable property to Canada and give

us an all-rail Canadian route. Tlie hon. gentleman said : 'We tie the profitable portion of the line-speaking of the western section -to the unprofitable part of it, and condemn the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to take the bad with the good and operate the two together.' Well, I propose to deal with that point later. He further said : ' The building of another line of railway as a competitor does not injure the present railway. If the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway carries out its contract, it will cost us no more than what the hon. Minister of Finance has said. The Grand Trunk Railway is worth more to-day on account of the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway.'
And he went on to argue that the high standing of the Grand Trunk Railway was undoubtedly guaranty that it would be able to pay the interest on the bonds and on the cost of the eastern section. But if the Grand Trunk Railway is worth so much to-day, how is it that it has never been able to pay us back anything on the $15,000,000 we gave it in 1855 or 1857 ? Why is it that from that day to the present, it has never been able to pay the interest on that loan ? Away back in 1855 or 1857, we loaned the Grand Trunk Railway $15,142,000. The simple interest on that amounted, at confederation, to $10,457,000 of which not a dollar has ever been paid. What does the debt amount to today ? There is an accumulation of interest since confederation of $32,708,000, making a total interest of $43,165,000, and a total indebtedness of $58,308,000 due the 30th June, 1903.. If it cannot pay us a dollar on that debt, is it any more likely to pay us any interest upon the heavy expenditure we must incur to build that road from Winnipeg to Moncton ? Remembering what has happened in the past, it does not seem to me that the outlook for our getting anything from the Grand Trunk Railway in the future or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway very promising. We often hear it said how munificent we have been in our gifts to the Canadian Pacific Railway. But, if we compare the two companies, we will find that we have done much less for the Canadian Pacific Railwhy than for the Grand Trunk Railway, and we have had some return from the Canadian Pacific Railway which we are never likely to have from the Grand Trunk Railway.
What has the Grand Trunk Railway received from the public ? It received first the original loan of $15,000,000 on which there is an accumulation of interest since amounting to $43,165,000, making a total due in principal and interest of $58,308,179. In addition to these sums, the Grand Trunk Railway and its amalgamation have received :
Aid from the Dominion government..? 2,850,843
From Ontario, provincial aid	 2,671,333
From province of Quebec, provincial
aid	 1,354,797


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From Ontario, municipal aid	 $5,723,954
Province ot Quebec, municipal aid.. 293,774
Total	$12,894,704
The amount given to the Great Western in 1869, when debt was compounded, was $1,152,568, and to the Northern Railway, in 1877, owned and run by the Grand Trunk Railway, $3,258,760. Or in other words, we have given to the Grand Trunk Railway up to date $75,614,208, of which we have never received a dollar in return, either principal or interest. Yet we are told that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will surely pay the immense obligation it is undertaking, that Canada will be recouped every dollar, that Canada need not be afraid of the expense, because we have the Grand Trunk Railway behind the scheme. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, says the Minister of Finance, may be men of straw, but we have the Grand Trunk Railway, with its assets of $150,000,000, behind it. Therefore we can feel perfectly safe. We are in the hands of a company which will pay back every dollar to Canada. Well, I cannot say that I share this confidence.
I wish for a short time to direct my attention to what may be fairly regarded as the first and only policy ever initiated by the present government. It is a policy which is entirely its own, and by which it must either stand or fall. The wild, hilarious en-husiasm with which its advent was hailed was something seldom seen in this House. In its incoherency and unmeaningness it resembled the paroxysms of hysteria. One could not understand the enthusiasm, the joy, the acclaim with which that policy was hailed. The scene could only be likened to what is occasionally witnessed by a medical man in private families. He goes on a medical visit and has to remain a long time in the house. A number of women are present, a great interest is felt, and finally when the happy event is over, all is confusion and admiration and joy and sorrow all mixed up. What is the cause of it all ? It is because of the advent of a young heir. After ten or twelve years of married life, it is the first and only one. Unbounded is the general joy and great the general admiration, as the young hopeful is dangled before an admiring world. See what a rising star of the east has appeared, and just think what it shall do when it grows to be a man. Think of its future possibilities. In like manner, hon. gentlemen opposite admired this bantling of the government, looked upon it and at each other, and cheered and wondered that ever so much was accomplished. I leave it to the dry-nurses to handle it for the next few years, and after that, I will pass it over to the tender mercies of the electors of Canada, and I am quite sure they will deal with it. But what does it mean to Canada, this political monstrosity that has been born into the world, and at whose birth there has

875S
been such clapping of hands, such admiration, and such joy, and such sorrow, that these emotions seem the result of hysteria ? Time alone can tell. But, in the first place, let me say that its advent was at the most inopportune time that it could possibly present itself


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They always come unexpectedly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There Is another strange resemblance that I had not noted. It comes at the time when we should naturally begin to think it could never come-at the tail end of a long session, after the House has been struggling for five months to get through its duties, and when we might reasonably have expected to end our arduous labours and be free, each of us, to look after his own business. But this proposition comes before us at the end of a long session, when there is no time to consider it, no time to deal with it. It is altogether too important a matter to be forced on us in this way. And yet, we are told, that we are to have morning sittings. The excitement of the closing of the session is started so that we may rush it through without proper consideration and without affording the people of the country time to size it up through the press, and to understand what it is they are being committed to. The next question I ask is whether there have been any demands from the people in any section of the country for another transcontinental railway? Have the boards of trade asked for it? I do not know of a single one, except that one resolution was said to have been passed by a few members of the Toronto board of trade, a resolution engineered by my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Campbell). What gatherings of farmers have asked for it? What province has been clamouring for this scheme? Was it demanded in the west ? I do not think so, for hon. gentlemen opposite have been unable to show us that there has been any such demand. Has Ontario called for it? No, for I say distinctly that the sentiment of Ontario is against the subsidizing of railways.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the sentiment of Ontario; I say that without any hesitation. Was it demanded by New Brunswick? Well, we did not hear anything of it until this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme was launched. Was it called for in Cape Breton ? My hon. friend (Mr. .Tolmston, Cape Breton), who speaks of it, had not a word to say about it before this scheme was broached. He was in favour of extending the Intercolonial to Georgian bay. But, as to this new scheme, he was as dumb as the proverbial clam in his own part of the country. Was it demanded by the labour organization? By no means.
The government party have engineered through a few resolutions by those bodies since the scheme was proposed, but nothing was heard of it from that quarter before. From what class, then, does the demand for this road come ? From one ciass only- the grafters and exploiters; the same ciass of men who engineered the Crow's Nest pass scheme, and who profited by it so well; the same class of men who are forever hanging about parliament and the party in power trying to get something out of the state for which they give no return. True, we have had the clamour from that class. I see in one of the newspapers that this scheme is headed by Senator Cox, which leads another newspaper to speak of this as the march of Coxey's army. In view of that, I thought that there was a peculiar appropriateness in the words of the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sif-ton), that we had come to the parting of the ways. It will be remembered that Coxey organized a great army of tramps and set it travelling through a part of the United States and scattering desolation in its path. These tramps had their last grand rally at a certain point, where Coxey addressed ills hearers. He said : We have come to the parting of the ways; we had better divide here; half the army had better follow the course of empire and go west,, and the other travel east where the wise men came from, or if they don't like that they can go to Halifax. I think that when this Coxey's army divides, a large part of it will go to Halifax, when the people size them up.
Now, in connection with this scheme, we have no mandate from the people to undertake the building of a transcontinental railway, and they add to the debt of the country for that purpose a sum not less than $125,000,000. No government in Canada before has attempted such a gigantic scheme without first gaining the consent of the people. We are told that we built the Intercolonial, and that we decided to; build it before surveys had been made. True, but we built that road carrying out an agreement of confederation. We commenced to build the Canadian Pacific Railway without a complete survey, bjit again we were carrying out an agreement of confederation. We bad undertaken these tasks in order to gain the advantages that would accrue to Canada from the union of the west with the east and from the union of the maritime provinces with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. But we had the mandate of the people for these works. In this case, there is no such mandate. This, it is said, is an attempt to solve the important problem of transportation which has been engaging tile attention of the government at various times since they came info power. For seven years we have heard about the great problem of transportation and about what hon. gentlemen opposite were going to do


Mr. DOUGLAS.: Let me tell the hon. gentleman that it took five months to get a carload of grain from my ranch to the lakes; it remained all the time in the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Surely, there was need for additional facilities between that country and the lakes.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I desire to say a word in answer to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), who told me not very long ago that he did not care whether the Grand Trunk Pacific was built or not, because he had all the railway accommodation he wanted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to inquire how they handled their products now. They had between sixty and seventy million bushels of grain last year. From the commencement of the season of transportation of that grain until the 1st of July, there were forty-four million bushels came eastward, and the balance of it was either sent west or was consumed in the country. It was handled by one railway then only partially equipped, and every bushel of wheat was taken out of the country by the 1st July this year. The balance of the wheat either remained in the country or has gone westward to China and Japan. Now, if with their .present facilities, which are acknowledged to be very imperfect and which are being improved every day, they handled the bumper crop which was raised in that country last year and they had it out of the country by the first of July, it does not seem to me, although, there may have been some local blockade, that there was such trouble in getting the grain out of the country. If it be true that the crop was handled by one road which had given a contract for 20,000 additional cars and which had only got a fraction of that number for their needs during the season when the grain was handled ; if it be true that it was handled by one road which had given a contract for twenty-five additional locomotives and which had only got three or four : if that one road, only partially equipped and in an imperfect condition successfully handled that crop, admitting that there may have been local blockades with which I shall deal later on, then, I say the urgent haste will not be so apparent for additional transportation facilities between the east and the west as hon. gentlemen say. We -are told that they will not have a greater crop this year than last year. In what position will the railway be this year ? The Canadian Pacific Railway will have a great many more cars to handle the produce of the west, it will have a great many more engines, it will be better equipped for the work. The Canadian Northern has got into the country in the meantime and it is also tolerably well equipped to handle the produce. If one railway got the grain out by the first of July this year-the first one better equipped than it was last year, and the second one tolerably well equipped-will there be any great difficulty in them handling the same amount of grain this year-because it is not contended that there will be any more grain this year than last ? That does not justify the contention that there is an immediate and urgent need for further transportation facilities for the purpose of handling that grain. Let us inquire how that grain is handled ? First it is sent to the elevators in the country. There was elevator capacity for twenty-five million bushels last fall. They have 13,500,000 bushels of elevator capacity at Port Arthur and Fort William or they will have this fall. There are addi-

tional elevators being erected in the west this year, we are told, that will store 10,500,000 bushels of wheat at least. 'In addition to that at different ports on the Georgian bay there is elevator capacity for about 5,000,000 bushels of grain. What does that make in the aggregate ? It makes an aggregate of 54,000,000 bushels of grain, or 10,000,000 bushels more than were sent out of the country last year and they do not expect to have a larger crop this year than they had last. What will be the ordinary course in the handling of that grain V It will go first into the country elevators. The railway will be moving it eastward to the great inland port of Fort William and Port Arthur. Vessels will be carrying it to ports on the Georgian bay and south of the Georgian bay. As fast as the train can carry it from the west it will be landed at Port Arthur and Fort William, the elevators will run it out to the vessels and they will take it to the Georgian bay and the ports south of the Georgian bay and these elevators will be gradually filled up. This grain is moved eastward all the time and by the time the grain is threshed in the latter part of the season and by the time navigation closes about the middle of December a large portion of the grain will have gone eastward. Perhaps eight or ten million bushels will have been carried eastward and forty or fifty million bushels will be in the elevators of the west, in the elevators of Port Arthur and Fort William, and in the elevators on Georgian bay, and during the winter that grain will be distributed.. With these facilities for handling the grain, what do we require ? We require more elevator capacity in the west, at the lake ports on Lake Superior and on the Georgian bay. We can always get vessels enough to handle the grain after it reaches Port Arthur or Fort William, and the grain will be moved eastward all the time. We require proper facilities for bringing that grain from the elevators in the west to Port Arthur and Fort William. We are getting improved facilities every day. It is easy to provide them for the future without the expensive outlay which is involved in this scheme. That is the way the grain will be handled in the near future. How will it be handled in the distant future ? The grain produced in the eastern section of the prairie country will be sent eastward on the lines I have indicated. The elevators will have it stored ; from those elevators it will be taken to the lake ports, and it will be carried eastward all the time. But we will have a very valuable and increasing trade westward with China and Japan. A. magnificent trade is being rapidly built up with these countries and we will send millions of bushels of grain and barrels of flour to feed those 450 millions of people in that great eastern country who must depend in future on what we will be able to send them for a large portion of their food supply. Then, we will have an-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: other route in the future. Where will the grain go from the Peace river district, the Edmonton district, the Prince Albert district, and away north and westward ? Iu the future that grain will be sent out by way of Hudson's Bay route. I have no doubt whatever of it. That is our great inland port. Just as sure as we are standing in this House to-day-I have said it before after carefuly analysing the conditions of that western country and the conclusion is more firmly fixed in my mind today-this will be one of the great routes of the future. Then, we will still have an increased amount of grain going eastward for two purposes-for the purpose of supplying food to the eastern provinces and even to the province of Ontario and for the purpose of transportation out of the country. We will have these routes in the future handling all the products of that great western country; China and Japan will be one route, the Hudson bay will be another route and the route by way of Port Arthur and Fort William will be the third. When you divide the amount of grain to be shipped out between these three routes there will not be the congestion that a great many people fear even if the development of that country in the future should be as great as most of us anticipate. Then, I say, we cannot and will not be able to utilize this scheme to carry grain from the Peace river country away through to Moncton, to transport it to St. John and load it on vessels to take it to Europe. It is an impracticable scheme. It never will be carried out in so far as carrying grain is concerned because no railway in the world can carry grain for 2,800 or 3,000 miles, and we have no example, as far as I know in the history of the world where grain has ever been carried for that distance on a railway. A large share of the grain will come east but there will be another disposition of that grain in the future which is not perhaps thought of much at the present time. The farmers in that country will change their system of farming.
They will do as they do in Ontario ; they will feed a large percentage of the grain they raise on their own farms, convert it into beef and pork, and send it out of the country in that profitable form. Half the wheat consumed in Ontario to-day is brought from Manitoba and the West. We raise more grain in Ontario than would feed our people if it were used for that purpose, but we have changed our system of farming, and we are feeding our grain to cattle, to hogs and to fowl, and we are conducting a profitable industry in that way. The people of the west will sometimes discover that the constant cropping of grain will impoverish their farms, and that they too will require to keep stock and feed that stock with a large proportion of the grain which they raise. If a proportion of the grain raised for export were stored in the elevators

at Port Arthur and the Georgian bay, there would be this great advantage, that during the winter season, when the railways were not otherwise amply employed, they could take carload after carload of that grain east. That system will also have the advantage of distributing the grain to the millers of Ontario, who are now using immense quantities of it. The manager of the institution at Peterborough told me the other day that in a short time when his factory would be running to its fullest capacity, they would be using from 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 bushels a year, in connection with the manufacture of cereal food. He told me that most of that grain would come from Manitoba and the West, and in addition to that they are going to build a large flour mill for the purpose of grinding flour in bond. The grain will be stored in their elevators on the Georgian bay, and as they require it, it will be brought to Peterborough by rail and ground into flour and shipped eastward. This is the means by which grain will come out of the West in the future. We have no reason to apprehend grain blockades. The fact is that taking all the possible conditions into consideration, even with the greater production in the West, we will not in the future have the difficulty in handling it that we experience to-day. 1 was for a short time engaged in the milling industry, and we found that for ten months out of the twelve our mills had to be supplied from the West. Notwithstanding that we are raising more grain in Ontario now than in times past, nearly half of the grain ground in our mills comes from the West. But it comes from the elevators on the Georgian bay. We bring it in the summer from Port Arthur to these elevators, and then it is distributed to the mills in Ontario. JvTot only do we use it for grinding into flour, but we use it for feeding our stock. It is also a fact that we get an immense quantity of bran and shorts from the West, because the supply of feed for our stock in the great province of Ontario requires that we should do so. We have no reason to fear that the grain of the West will not have sufficient facilities to find its way to market.
We are told, as another reason for the building of this railway, that it will afford a short route to the seaboard, and that it can carry traffic at the cheapest possible rates. According to the Finance Minister, this railway will be 2,800 miles in length to the foot of the Rockies. What railway can carry grain for 2,800 miles and make it pay ? There is no railway in the world that can do it. Neither can grain be carried at a profit from the more easterly points of Regina, Moosejaw or Prince Albert. Grain is being carried to-day from Winnipeg to Montreal for 11 cents a bushel, or it will be on the first of September. Why, if that railway were built to-morx-ow it could not carry grain at 11 cents a bushel for 1,400
miles. We may, therefore, dismiss that as a reason why this railway should be built at the present time, because there is no doubt that this railway cannot carry it as cheaply as it is being carried to-day by part water and part rail route. As another reason for the construction of this railway we were told that we should have a railway to an ocean port on all-Canadian territory, so that we would be independent of the Americans and the bonding privilege. Well, we can accomplish all that by building a line from Riviere du Loup to Edmundston, and thence to Moncton, a distance of 209 miles. We have the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is an all rail route through Canada, except where it crosses the state of Maine for a short distance. We have the Grand Trunk Railway going westward, and we have the Intercolonial Railway going eastward, and if we filled in that link from Rivi6re du Loup to Edmundston and thence to Moncton, we would have an all rail Canadian route, and we would be as independent of the Americans as this new railway can make us. That reason will not appeal to the Canadian people as a justification for the government undertaking this enormous expenditure. We are also told that the influx of immigration to the West makes it necessary that we should provide railway facilities for the future. Well, they are building new railways in the. West every day. The Grand Trunk Railway proposed to get into the Western territory if the government never adopted this scheme at all. They have their road now to North Bay, and their first proposal was to go through to the West. They would have done that whether the government interfered or not. Again we are told in support of this project that it will open up new territories for settlement in New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. We have had settlement going Into these new parts of the country for many years and has any one pretended that the existing lines are over taxed in supplying the needs of the settlers. We have a railway running from Calgary to Edmonton for ten years, and until within the last two years I am told that it never paid a cent upon the investment, and that it is only paying two per cent to-day. Has the settlement in that part of the country overtaxed the capacity of that railway ? Not at all. There is comparatively little settlement along that 198 miles of railway. I passed over it last fall, and the settlement was verv sparse. It has never been a paying road. Then, what has become of the Regina and Long Lake Railway, which has been built ten or twelve years ? Has the settlement along the line of that railway overtaxed its capacity ? It has nevei yet paid anything on the money invested in it. The' portions of that country through which these railways run are not half settled to-day. You might put hundreds of 1 thousands 'of people, without overcrowding

them, in the districts where we have transportation facilities already without overtaxing the capacity of the railways. I say that the supply of railways in many portions of the western country is ample, whereas, in other sections railway accommodation is badly needed. The Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific are building more railways every year.
Then we had that magnificent scheme for development of that country, devised and launched last year by the premier of Manitoba in his deal with the Northern Pacific and Canadian Northern, by which he secured to the country the advantage of 1,800 miles of railway-one of the most valuable deals, in my judgment, ever carried out in this country. Did he saddle the country with an expense of $125,000,000 to do it? Not a dollar. We are told that we must incur that expense to have control over the freight rates of this proposed line; but the premier of Manitoba secured control over the freight rates of those railways for ever without adding another dollar to the debt of Canada. We are told that we require to provide railway facilities for Manitoba and the North-west; but he secured those railway facilities and reduced the cost of transporting grain out of the country without incurring a dollar of expense. I am glad the bon. premier of Manitoba is here to grace this floor with his presence to-day. I say lie has done more for the west by that stroke of statesmanship a thousand times over than will ever be accomplished by this proposed scheme of the government.
I understand very well that our Northwest is a great country; I do not underestimate its value and importance. I know that the great future of Canada is bound up with the west, and I believe it will be necessary in the future to provide for a development that has been unparalleled in the history of this country. But we claim that tlxat can be done without the unwise expenditure or the heavy increase in the national debt involved in the scheme before us to-day. We know it can be and will be by other schemes less onerous and equally valuable, which will be initiated and carried out by the Conservative party in the future. What have we already done for that country ? We built the Canadian Pacific Railway. We are told that that great undertaking cost this country over $65,000,000 of cash and 25,000,000 acres of land. Was it an unwise expenditure, considering the condition of the country at the time? We were told last night what that country had cost us, and the value that had been given to it by the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I say that in proportion to what the Minister of the Interior says that great country is enhanced in value by that expenditure, in that proportion he justifies what the Conservative party has done in the past for the benefit of that Mr. SPROULE.
country. We have given assistance to the Grand Trunk Railway for the same purpose, and we are willing to give it assistance in the future, though we do not endorse this scheme, because we are as anxious and willing to provide for the future of that great country as the present government is. We have very lavishly subsidized the Canadian Northern, because we had control of the freight rates of that railway, and because we desired to increase the size of the spout that was carrying the grain out of the country. It would be an easy matter to double the tracks of the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific, as I have no doubt it will be necessary to do in the near future, and in that way double their capacity for handling freight; and it could be done at very much less expense than this scheme will Involve. We have made very heavy expenditures upon our canals. We have been told by the gov-ernmtnt from year to year that they were perfecting our canal system to provide a means of transporting the grain from the west to the seaboard. Bast year they told us what wonderful things they had accomplished-they had finished the canals, which their predecessors had been dabbling with for years, and had provided a continuous water-course from Lake Superior to the St. Lawrence, through which the grain of the west would float along in palatial steamers to the ocean carriers, the bottle-nosed ships which were going to carry it to the markets of Europe. They claimed that they were developing every highway of commerce at once, unlike the Conservatives, who developed one and left the others, and that they had finally settled the great transportation problem. They had finished our canals, deepened our waterways, and provided more lights along the St. Lawrence. But now we are told that all this is futile, and that they have to devise another scheme. And the urgency of it is so great that they cannot wait even a few' months until the next session of parliament, but must introduce it at the end of the present session. What will this scheme involve to Canada if it is carried through? It will involve an addition to Canada's debt of at least $125,000,000. I have listened very carefully to the estimates made by every bon. gentleman who has spoken on the other side of the House, and I say that if you build such a road, having regard to its alignment and its gradients, which the hon. member for North Norfolk says must be equal to those of the New York Central, which bandies 2,000 tons in one train, I say that $125,000,000 will be added to the debt of Canada by the eastern section alone. I say that $125,000,000 will be added to the debt of Canada by the construction of that eastern section, and in saying that I am within the mark. I make the prophecy that provided we build the kind of railway declared to be neces-

sary for the carrying of grain in the future, we will add to the debt of Canada $125,000,000. No $13,000,000 will do' it. How do we stand to-day? We have spent up to the present on railways $258,800,000, and we have never grumbled at that expenditure, because it was for the development of the west and the east. On our canals we have spent $103,484,000, or on the two combined we have spent $362,345,000. We have at present, in round numbers, a national debt of $268,000,000, and by this project we will add to that debt at least $125,000,000. What will be our position then? We will owe about $400,000,000. I want the Canadian tax-bearer to understand what we are being committed to.


Mr. COCHKANE.: We will be bled white then.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes. This present year we have $9,733,000 of debt falling due, which must be provided for by another loan. Next year we will have $20,926,000 falling due, which must be provided for in like manner. In 1905 we shall have $4,866,000 falling due that must be taken up. In 1906 $12,166,000 will be due and will have to be met. So that up to the year 1900, when it is not claimed that this road will be finished, we shall have to provide for an amount falling due of $47,693,000, to meet which we will have to borrow money. In addition, we will have to provide $155,000,000 to carry out this undertaking. Add that to the debt we are carrying, and what will become of our credit ? Will we be able to borrow money at as low rate of interest as to-day ? I am very much afraid we will not. We are to-day on the wave of prosperity. Cycles of good and bad times follow each other as regularly as day and night, sunshine and cloud. And I am very much mistaken if the demoralization of stocks does not indicate that we are now on the verge of hard times. Let shrinkage of values continue, let there toe decrease in our importations and reduction in our revenue as the result, and where will we be ? Remember that we must raise inside of those six years very close on $200,000,000 by borrowing, and let me ask the hon. Minister of Finance what will then be the dilemma in which he will find himself, and how he will handle it ? My right hon. friend the First Minister smiles. Is it at something that is passing in his own head that he is smiling ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is what is passing through the head of my hon. friend that amuses me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the problem with which we are to be confronted amuses the right hon. gentleman, he is welcome to all the amusement he can derive from it. But careful, thoughtful business men will study out these things in their own mind, and will ask what solution the right hon. gentleman proposes, and he will be obliged to answer that inconvenient question. But it is said 275
that this heavy expenditure will tide us over the hard times. I admit that it will do some good, but it will be at an awful cost to the people, and whether the benefits we will receive from that heavy expenditure will make up for the additional burden of taxation caused by this heavy outlay, is something I am not prepared to even guess at.
I have said that the sentiment of the country, in Ontario at least, is against the subsidizing of railways largely in the future. Has the government had any mandate from the people to put through this project ? No. I challenge the Prime Minister to-day to dissolve this House and go to the country upon this scheme. Dare he risk it ? He dare not. If he should do it, and if the people should return him to power, then he may carry out his scheme and I shall not offer any objection. But when does he propose to appeal to the people ? Not until the die is cast. Not until it is too late for us to back out. Not before we are committed to one of the most gigantic follies ever proposed. We will not be able to get rid of this scheme by paying $328,000, as we did for our indiscreet railway venture into the Yukon. We will have to carry out the scheme in some way in the future and my sympathy will be, not for the right hon. gentleman, because I do not think he will be returned to office, but with the men who will be elected to office and on whom will fall the carrying out of this measure. Who wants this scheme ? The west do not want it. They do not consider it the best scheme. They do want more railways, but they say they do not want this railway. Does Ontario want it ? Wre have had no voice from Ontario calling for it. Who then wants it ? It is the Grand Trunk Railway and the grafters attached to that company, the men who have always been trying to exploit the country. But do the Grand Trunk want the eastern portion of the scheme ? We know they do not, for their proposition first was to build up from North Bay to the west. They very reluctantly allowed that eastern line to be tacked on tq the one that they proposed. My honest opinion is that they neither want it nor believe that it will be carried out. Why do I say so ? Because there is a very convenient clause in this Bill which I think was put in there for a specific purpose. The Grand Trunk want to get into the west and. under this arrangement, they will get into the west. But they do not want to go into the maritime provinces at all, and do not want to be obliged to build eastward of Montreal, nor do they want to build a new line from North Bay to Montreal. Section 21 of this Bill provides :
The Governor in Council shall have the power at any time to suspend the progress of the work on said eastern division until the then next session of parliament.
This is a very convenient section for a political scheme like this. The hope is that



this will carry the maritime provinces for the government, by holding out the hope of the expenditure upon another railway. 'It is hoped that it will carry Quebec on the same cry, and especially by the assistance of two or three millions that we are going to give to the Quebec bridge. In Ontario- why, no one knows what we are going to do in that northern country, building a railway through the great clay belt. The proposed expenditure in Ontario combined with the gerrymander, it is hoped, will carry that province. And, of course, the scheme will be in favour in the west. It is a political scheme, designed for the purpose of carrying elections and give the government another term of office. But I am inclined to think that, should they succeed, they will have their engineers report that this eastern section is an impracticable scheme, and so the government will submit the question to parliament. Don't you think you had better drop it ? In the meantime, the Grand Trunk will have its line in the west. It is to-be subsidized west from Winnipeg by the guarantee of bonds to the extent of $13,000 a mile on the prairie section and $30,000 a mile in the mountain section through to Port Simpson. With this they will have all they wanted, and they are hoping that the eastern section will be dropped. If all this results in giving the government another term of power, I do not think we shall hear much more about the eastern portion of the road. It is a purely political scheme. What advantage is it to the people of Canada to build a railway and then give it away ? We are told that the people of Canada will continue to own it. What advantage would it be to a farmer to build a house and barn on his farm, and then hand it over to another person for ten years without interest and for forty years after that at three per cent on the money ? I think the farmer would say : That is a bad investment forme ; better sell my farm and go into some other line. It is very well to say that the people of Canada will own this line. They tell a story of a little boy who was asked by a visitor, who owned a colt that was in the barnyard ? ' I do,' said the boy, 1 but father does as he likes with it.' This road would belong to the government, but the Grand Trunk would do as it liked with it. We own the road, but we give it away for fifty years, and, in my judgment, to" give a railroad away for fifty years is to give it away for ever. We are assured that we shall get the interest on the money. Well,
I have given you an account of what the Grand Trunk has done with us in the past. No man can say with certainty that they will pay that interest any more than they have paid the interest which they undertook to pay us years ago. We loaned them $15.000,000 to build the Grand Trunk Railway, i Have they paid three per cent on it ? Have they paid two per cent on it ? Have they paid even one per cent on it. They have not Mr. SPROULE.
paid a solitary dollar. We are told that their road is worth twice as much as it was before the Canadian Pacific Railway was built. Has this enabled them -to pay that interest ? Not a cent. And if this road is built and passed over to them, we shall receive no return, the interest will accumulate and will stand against -the country for the. time of the contract and for all time in future. A great deal is made of the argument that the right is retained in -the government under this contract to allow other companies to use this road on equal terms. Weil, we have heard enough argument on that subject to convince me, at all events at least, that this is utterly impracticable. Bet me add an instance to those already given. When we were chartering the Canadian Pacific Railway it was found necessary to establish a connecting link between it and the roads of western Ontario. So we built the Gravenhurst and Callender line, subsidizing it to the extent of $11,000 a mile so that it would be independent and all roads could have running powers over it. We surrounded it with every safeguard that able lawyers could devise, so as to assure the rights of all these railways. But it was thought necessary to give it into the possession of one road to handle, because we could not run it by a commission. What road should we give it to, was the question. There was -the Canadian Pacific Railway at one end and the Grand Trunk at the other. We decided to give it to the Grand Trunk, so as to have the greatest assurance of competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway. But, under -the conditions established, the Grand Trunk was to give full running rights to all other companies. The Grand Trunk entered into a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway to use that road, and the Canadian Pacific Railway did use it for a few years. But has that arrangement been satisfactory ? Why, there was a dispute a few years ago when, for a whole summer the trade of Ontario was hampered and inconvenienced because of the failure of these two roads to agree. We had freight coming from the North-west to Toronto down toy way of Carleton Place, carried over two hundred miles of road more than was necessary merely on account of the disagreement between the roads. And this, notwithstanding that we had surrounded the independence of that link with every safeguard that the ablest lawyers in this House could suggest. This, is pretty good evidence that we are not likely to receive much benefit from retaining the nominal control over the proposed road that the hon. Minister of the Interior and his colleagues tell us that we shall retain. This idea of a number of roads using one line * in common is a delusion and a snare. If we could not, as in the case I have given, secure the independence of a road 198 miles long, how shall we secure the independence of a road 1,800 miles long ? There is not the slightest

[DOT]eliance of it in my opinion. But these are the arguments that are used to justify this proposal that the government shall build the expensive part of the road and then give it away for the benefit of the company-for, as I say, to lease this road for fifty years is practically to lease it for ever, and the interest will simply accumulate, as the interest has accumulated on the money we have already loaned the Grand Trunk. That money was loaned in 1845 and not a dollar of interest has been paid yet. Is there any guarantee that they will pay the interest upon this ? In my judgment there is not.
Then there is another thing. We have a juggling between three companies that seems to be inexplicable, unfathomable, and that we cannot properly analyze, an agreement between the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Railway belonging to the government. The government agree with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk Pacific has nothing behind it except the stocks they are going to subscribe. But the government tell us they have the full weight and power of the Grand Trunk behind them, and they say that the Grand Trunk Pacific may arrange to amalgamate with the Grand Trunk. We will have the government railway amalgamating with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we will have the Grand Trunk Pacific amalgamating with the Grand Trunk. We will have two sets of stockholders, playing into the hands of the stockholders holding the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and playing into the hands of the same stockholders that are holding the stock of the Grand Trunk, and they can manipulate it as they like, the contracts, the stocks, the bonds, the sales, or anything else, and no man in Canada to-day can say what will be the operations of these three companies combined in the future. No analysis of them can be made to-day, no intelligence in this House can explain, it to-day. I say, therefore, it is unwise, it is improvident and it is improper. Our past experience with the Grand Trunk justifies the belief that it would be unwise for us to undertake that scheme at the present time, and, therefore, I am opposed to it.
What does this scheme mean to the province I represent ? Suppose we build that road, and it is a success. -Suppose it carries all the grain from the west to the east, and the stuff from the east to the west, what does that mean to Ontario ? It means that in proportion as you make that road a great success, you impoverish the transportation routes we have to-day. You take away the trade that comes to-day to our Georgian bay ports in the east, that comes from Port Arthur and the head of Lake Superior in the west. It takes away the earning powers of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canada Atlantic Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, and of the Ottawa and Parry Sound Railway. It reduces their 275j
earning powers to the same extent as you make this other line a success. You must, therefore, do it at their expense. You must do it at the expense of our harbours, at the expense of the towns and villages along the line of the Georgian bay, at the expense of Collingwood, of Midland, of Penetangui-shene, of Parry Sound, of Meaford, of Owen Sound, of Kincardine, of all those lake ports that are handling that trade to-day. You will do it at their expense, you will sidetrack all the populous towns and cities in western Ontario. You will take the grain trade of the country away from them, and leave us hundreds of miles off this great artery of commerce, if it turns out to be what its sanguine supporters claim it will be. I say that the Ontario electorate will not view it with pleasure, because if you make it a success you are handicapping Ontario to that extent. We were told from the government benches the other night, that the road is going to carry cattle from Ontario to the west. We were told with a great flourish of trumpets by the Minister of the Interior that 25,000 head of cattle last year were carried from Ontario to the west, and so many thousand head of cattle came in from Mexico. Why ? Because they have not facilities to carry more cattle from Ontario. I never heard of a single animal being stalled for want of railway facilities to carry more cattle from Ontario. Our present facilities could have carried five times as many as they did. But he takes the cattle that were brought in by the settlers, by the ranchers who were driving them out of their own country, and he uses these as an argument to justify the expenditure on this new line. That shows how the hon. gentleman is handicapped for arguments. I say we are sidetracked in Ontario, you are doing a great injustice to the people of Ontario. What does this mean to every Ontario farmer to-day ? I say if this railway is built, the eastern section will cost $125,000,000, including what will be paid for the first seven years on the guarantee that we give for the western section. There is no doubt whatever it will cost ns that sum in the next ten years.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: How do you reach these figures ?
Mi-. SPROULE. I say the eastern section of 1,800 miles cannot be built, if the railway is made up to the standard to that described by the member for North Norfolk for one dollar under $125,000,000.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Could the hon. gentleman give us a little closer estimate ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can give you the cost of the sections of the road that are already built through a somewhat similar country.


Mr. TALBOT.: But the hon. gentleman said just now that he knew nothing about the country, that nobody knew anything about the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government themselves say that. I am basing my reasoning upon what we know of the cost of railways that have passed through a country similar, according to the reports of engineers on this very section, what it would cost to build a railway of this character. I say it will cost 125 millions, and that sum must be piled on to the debt of Canada. What does f that mean to the Ontario farmer ? There are said to be in Ontario 455,000 families, and this will mean an addition of $125 of debt imposed on every family in Ontario. Let them think of that in the future. According to the population of Ontario, her portion of this heavy expenditure will amount to $45,525,000. This I say is an addition to our debt, it is another mortgage against every Ontario farmer, and every Ontario family of five persons, it represents a mortgage of $125 registered against every Ontario family, the interest upon which they must pay for all time to come until that debt is wiped out, and it will never be wiped out in the life of the youngest member of this House. Let them think of that for a moment, and then triumphantly claim what this great achievement means that the present government propose to accomplish. Let them ask themselves whether they will be justified in endorsing that undertaking, that baby policy, that monstrosity of politics, that has been launched upon the world in connection with this scheme. When the people of Canada have digested this policy properly I am quite sure what the result will be. Sir, once more I dare the government to dissolve this House and appeal to the country to-day. Dare they ask a mandate from the electorate for this heavy undertaking ? They dare not do it, I challenge them to do it. We will willingly accept the result on this side of the House. I warn the government that if they still insist upon carrying out this policy, it will stand as a monument of folly to their credit. They are writing a page of history, as the hon. member for Westmoreland said, and they are writing a page of history which will be read in future, and which will not be complimentary to them, or creditable to their statesmanship, to their judgment or to their business ability. They are building that monument to themselves and that monument will stand in commemoration of what they have done. I am willing to abide by the results, but I have only sympathy for the poor rate-payers who are to-day being plunged into the dreadful abyss. They cannot see what is before them in the future, the thraldom of the yoke is imposed upon them, and chains are shackled around them which cannot be unfastened for the rest of their natural lives by virtue of the great policy which was introduced and upon the advent of which we all heard such an hysterical acclaim as was given when the right hon. leader of the government gave


Thomas Simpson Sproule: it to this House, to this country and to the world.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Gaspe).: Mr. Speaker, I must first of all apologize to you and to the House for attempting to speak in a language that is not my mother tongue, but I feel it my duty as a Canadian holding a mandate from the people, to express in as concise and clear a manner as X possibly can my opinions on this question of national importance. I shall not detain the House at any length, because I am well aware that already the arguments on this question, pro and con, have been fully adduced. It has been my privilege to sit in this House since 1896, and during this comparatively long parliamentary period no question has ever been brought before this parliament to compare in magnitude with the present proposal. Indeed, one must go back to the old days of 1878 and 1879, when the Canadian Pacific Railway contract was explained to the House by Sir Charles Tupper, then Minister of Railways and Canals, to find a parallel to the present situation. Sir Charles Tupper, in 1879, presented his famous motion by which the Canadian Pacific Railway contract was to become a government measure. It reads as follows
That engagements have been entered into with British Columbia as a condition of union with Canada ; that a line of railway to connect the Atlantic with the Pacific shall be constructed with all practical speed. That the Canadian Pacific Railway would form a great imperial highway across the continent of America entirely on British soil, and would provide a new and important route from England to Australia, to India and to all the dependencies of Great Britain in the Pacific ; as also to China and Japan.
That reports from the mother country set forth an unprecedented state of enforced idleness of the working classes, and the possibility of a scheme of relief on a large scale being found indispensable to alleviate destitution.
That the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway would afford immediate employment to numbers of workmen, and would open up vast tracts of fertile land for occupation, and thus would form a ready outlet for the overpopulated districts of Great Britain and other European countries.
And, Sir, again to-day,'notwithstanding what has been asserted by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproulel, the countay demands that a new transcontinental railway shall be built with all practical speed, as 25 years ago it demanded the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. A quarter of a century ago the announcement was made that a transcontinental railway should be built as an all-Canadian route, and to-day

Canada demands that this promise be implemented by the construction of a second national line, thereby giving employment to numbers of workingmen and opening up fertile lands to the tillers of the soil. It has been said Sir, that time is a great healer, and it may also be said that time is a great educator. Who amongst the old parliamentarians who sat in this House in 1878 and 1879, could have then ventured to predict that the day would come when the question of a new transcontinental' would become a live issue in Canadian politics ? Much as we may differ on details of this Bill, much as we may differ as to some of its features yet the necessity in which the government finds itstlf to present such a measure to the House and to the country at this juncture must indeed be regarded as a happy necessity. This policy is not a monument of folly, as was so inaptly said by the member for East Grey. It is a bold and it is an aggressive policy, but one which is sanctioned by the Canadian people. I fully recognize that bon. gentlemen on the other side would be remiss in their duty if they did not criticise the details of this measure as members of His Majesty's loyal opposition. Governments, after all, are only human; we all know the truth of the old Latin maxim, Tnunanum est errare'. The Oposition, under our parliamentary system, exists for the very purpose of preventing the adoption of any measure which may not be desired by the people, and one of its attributes is to criticise in every detail any proposal of the government which it may consider is unduly pressed before the House. It is the 'duty of an opposition to discredit the economy and show the weak points of such a measure. But in my judgment there are broad propositions in this enactment which should rally the unanimous support of the House, as they will rally the unanimous support of the country.
First, as to the necessity for providing new transportation facilities there is no question. We are all unanimous on that point. As to the imperative need of keeping Canadian trade within our own control instead of permitting it to flow year after year into American channels, there is no difference of opinion. As to freeing our country from commerical bondage, as to the expediency of opening up the ports of our Atlantic \ sea-boards, as to the wisdom of developing new Ontario, new Quebec, the prairies of the west, and the great lone land on the north of the Canadian Pacific Railway, we are all of one) mind. This policy of the government is a broad one, and its very essence makes for Canadian solidarity, Canadian unity, Canadian commercial independence* and Canadian stability.
I listened wiitli rriuch pleasure to my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), and if I speak to-night after him, let him
not think it Is because I can compare my ability with his. I am too young a member of this House to attempt to answer his very able speech, but, Sir, I am fully aware that when he says for instance that this policy is a monstrous policy, that It is a monument of folly, I know that he exaggerates just as he exaggerated in 1898, when he denounced the Yukon railway contract, submitted by the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Blair), whom he now extols to the seventh heaven. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule), as a result of this scheme, told us this afternoon that the country would incur an indebtedness of $125,000,000. I could not but smile at the fantastic figures presented by the hon. gentleman. ' Did he not to-day, as he did some years ago, obey the dictates of his imagination ? To-day the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has done his best to run down the great lone land of the Canadian west. He and his friends represent the country through which this railway shall run as a country of muskegs and rocks ; but in 1898, when the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals came before this House and sprung upon it, as the members of the opposition said, a contract which had) been signed before parliameint assembled, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) represented the acres of snow in the valley of the Sti-kine river as being able to produce recurring crops of gold year after year. Sir. I have his speech from which I quote the following :
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, we will suppose that 500,000 free miners went into that country and located the various claims comprised in these 4,000,000 acres. Two years would he a very moderate estimate of the time required for this.
Sir, I ask my hon. friend, whose honesty of purpose I shall not discuss, where are thosu 500,000 free miners to-day ? At that time my hon. friend, for political motives, wanted to extol the richness and wealth of the Stikine river valley, the projected route of the Mackenzie & Mann railway. He and his political associates are given to such exaggerations when it suits their purpose. This afternoon the hon. gentleman issued his challenge to the right hon. leader of the government. ' Dissolve the House,' said he, 'and appeal to the people.' Well, Sir, I will not play the part of the plumed chevalier of olden times, and pick up the gauntlet which the hon. gentleman has thrown across the House; but I can tell him this, that if to-day parliament were dissolved, and an appeal were made to the electorate on this very bold and aggressive policy, the country from one end to the other would support the present ministry. The government has been charged with hasty action in this matter. We are told that public opinion is not ripe, and that this scheme has not yet been matured. Let me tell the hon. gentleman, as a French Canadian, that if there is one thing which early in my political life I came to recognize, it was the pluck, the

grasping power, the grit of the British people ; and this is a measure which in its very essence shows these British characteristics, because the government realize quickly and sharply that it was wanted by the country. Let me recall to the hon. gentleman a historical incident. On the 26th of November, 1876, late at night, one of the editors of the London ' Times ' called on Lord Beaconsfield, who was then the Prime Minister of England, and told him that he had learned during the day that the then Viceroy of Egypt, being in financial straits, was looking for a syndicate to purchase his shares in the Suez canal. At once Lord Beaconsfield, without consulting parliament, summoned the few colleagues he could gather together in the city of Loudon, and the result was that that very night he pledged the credit of Great Britain to a very large amount for the purchase of those shares. It was a bold stroke, and it was bitterly criticised by some members of the opposition ; but, Sir, the people of Great Britain knew what was pluck, what was energy, what was true statesmanship, and posterity will for ever declare that Lord Beaconsfield, a man of foreign extraction but of British citizenship, like our own premier, rendered a most valuable service to Great Britain for the part she has to play on the European continent.
My hon. friend this afternoon stated that there was no demand for this project, that public opinion had not pronounced upon it, except some railway grafters. You are aware, Sir, that some years ago this project was presented to parliament by some well known gentlemen; and, if I have to refer to them as grafters, it is because this is the ex-presssion used by the hon. gentleman and he will be much surprised to find amongst those so called grafters some of his most prominent political friends. Let me quote the names of the late Senator 'Francis Olemow, Mr. Victor Chateauvert, candidate for the Conservative party in Quebec West, and the late Hon. Mr. Dobell, who had been a Conservative, but who joined the Liberal party because he thought his principles would be in safer hands with that party than with the Conservative party. This scheme was known as the Trans-Canada Railway, and it received the approbation of all the large public bodies in the province of Quebec. My hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) can state that during last year he travelled from Quebec to Vancouver, and that from every board of trade the unanimous consensus of opinion was in favour of this scheme. The Board of Trade of Quebec represented by its President. Mr. Tanguay, came before the honourable the Prime Minister on the 10th of February. 1901, with a petition in favour of this scheme, which concluded as follows :-
On this financial basis the promoters of this enterprise would he prepared to suggest the following advantages to Canada, advantages Mr. LEMIEUX.
which have never yet been offered to the country by any other railway corporation :-
1.	To construct the entire road with steel rails and steel bridges of Canadian manufacture, thus offering to the new steel and iron works at Sydney, Midland, Sault Ste. Marie and Hamilton an immediate market for an immense quantity of steel.
2.	To give free transportation from Quebec to any point on its line for all immigrants and bona fide new settlers and their effects.
3.	To carry wheat from all points on its line in the province of Manitoba to the ocean steamer at Chicoutimi or Quebec for nine cents per bushel, thus saving the farmer of .Manitoba about seven cents per bushel on present freight rates to the seaboard.
But there is more than that. If the hon. gentleman says that this scheme is only promoted by grafters, what will he think of my hon. friend who represents the county of Colchester (Mr. Gourley) ? Last winter, that lion, gentleman came from the great city of Truro to the small city of Quebec to attend the meeting of the Board of Trade, and there delivered an eloquent speech in favour of this very scheme. As far back as 1884 the Quebec legislature adopted resolutions in favour of a similar policy. This new transcontinental line will develop the resources of new Quebec to an extent which I cannot describe. The right hon. the first minister was taunted by the leader of the Opposition and the Conservative press for having made an oratorical display in presenting this measure to the House. Weil, I have read very carefully the reports which have been published on the new district to be opened up by this railway and according to these reports the northern region of Quebec will benefit to an extent it is difficult to overestimate. If you will permit me, I shall read opinions given by people who were in a position to know, of the nature of the soil, of the minerals found and the other resources of these vast domains. In the great speech which he delivered, the Prime Minister spoke of the missionaries, the voya-geurs and the trappers, who, in the olden days, explored the vast prairies of the west. He spoke of La Verendrye, whose sons were the first to climb to the summit of the Rocky mountains. This, Mr. Speaker, was no oratorical display, but an unvarnished statement of plain facts. This was a lesson in history to the young generation, who, in days to come, will be travelling through those distant regions in railway cars, those regions where 200 years ago the only white people ever seen there were those pioneers- men of my race and blood, and of whom I am justly proud. If you wish to know what is the nature of the soil you have to refer to the accounts given by those very men who crossed those vast plains many years ago. Here in the city of Ottawa you have the university conducted by the Oblate Fathers. As my hon. friends from the west know, the missionaries of this order have been the pioneers in the west. I have read the reports given by them and describing the Pine river valley.

the Peace river valley and Hudson bay district, and all these reports tend to show that there is in that distant land quite a new country just as rich and fertile as the southern part of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. Amongst others I have read a report from Father Nedelec, an Oblate Father, and an Indian missionary, who answered several questions put to him by Mr. Scott, the secretary of the Trans-Canada Railway. Father Nedelec says :
The tountry is generally habitable, except a few places, chiefly along the coast. Along the east coast the fishing is good. All kinds of grain, except wheat and buckwheat, also fruit and vegetables, are, as a rule, grown with success, except a few scattered places along the coast. I find it difficult to say what population might be supported in this territory. There is room for millions with improved agriculture and the development of industries. In some places the climate is better than that of north of Germany, better than Norway, north of Scotland. Lake St. John, Newfoundland. In some parts the natural resources are magnificent, and others not so good. As a general rule it resembles Quebec and the district of Lake St. John. All I can say is that the country is larger and more habitable than can be imagined. The soil is generally of a clayey nature. Between Lake Temiscamingue and height of land, white and red pine, spruce, soft birch abound; on the other side of the height of land spruce, soft birch and cedar.
Another Oblate Father whom 1 know personally, who was one of my professors at the Ottawa University, gives similar evidence. I refer to Father Paradis, former missionary at Moose Factory. He says :
This territory is very suitable for settlement and the land is first-class. From Lake Temiscamingue which is 650 feet above the sea, the Moose factory, a distance of 300 miles is one black clay plain, very suitable for grain, and well wooded with maple and other hard woods. At the height of land, 920 feet above the sea. pine is found in abundance also some very large poplar. From Lake Abbittibbi to James bay the finest spruce in America is to be found, and on the south side of the mountain some red pine.
He then speaks of the temperature, after which he discusses the produce.
The best possible potatoes and all root crops are grown here. Grain has not been tested to any great extent. I think wheat would succeed as well as in Manitoba. Oats, hay and barley would certainly succeed. Natural hay, excellent for cattle raising, is very plentiful. Excellent beef is raised here.
Then he comes to minerals, and refers us to Dr. Bell's report. He said ;
See Dr. Bell's report. I find him very conscientious is his reports, gypsum abounds at. the mouth of the Abbittibbi river. I think there is coal and petroleum under the river. Iron is plentiful. Mineral springs abound.
I think this country might be compared to Germany in Europe and the Fort Albany district with Russia.
The climate resembles that of Kamouraska, with the same flowers, wild fruits, such as gooseberries, strawberries, juniper berries and cranberries.
Let me now refer to the report of Dr. Bell, head of the Geological Survey Department, on this same region ;
A considerable portion of the territory southward of James bay is fit for settlement. My own explorations have not extended eastward of the basin of Moose river. In that basin a great deal of good land is found between the watershed of the great lakes and the commencement of the low level country to the south-west of James bay. The soil is mostly brownish, gravelly loam and light coloured clay, with sand in some parts. In the coniferous forests, when the ground is level, the surface is apt to be covered with deep moss, but when this timber has been burnt off and replaced by deciduous trees the ground is dry. The summer and winter temperature resembles those of the county of Rimouski-the summers not so hot, nor the winter so cold as at Winnipeg. The average snow fall is about three feet or a little more, still not quite so great as about the city of Quebec. Potatoes and all kinds of root crops have been found to do remarkably well. Hay also grows luxuriantly. Barley would, I think, be a sure crop every year, and rye could also be grown with advantage.
I have had experiments made at New Brunswick House and at Norfolk bn the Abbittibbi river, with a great variety of field and garden seeds and the results proved that this region is capable of growing anything which can be raised, say in the county of Rimouski. I regard the region as well suited for stock raising and dairy farming and it is not1 unlikely to prove fit for grain also.
Minerals are to be found in this region ; nearly all the metals are to be looked for in the Huronian formation, a belt of which is believed to run all the way from near I ake Abbittibbi to the south of Lake Mistassini, and this would be crossed by any railway from Quebec to James bay. Iron and gypsum are abundant to the north-west of Moose Factory.
We have also the report of the Rev. Mr. Bompas, the Anglican Missionary at Hudson's bay. But foremost, 'is the report of Mr. Henry O'Sullivan, F.R.G.S., a man well known in the province of Quebec, and a surveyor of great reputation. Mr. O'Sullivan, as chief surveyor of the Quebec Lands and Forest Department, has surveyed that region three times, and I beg to quote some of 1 his conclusions :
1st. What proportion, approximately, of the territory in question, south of East Main river, and west of Lake Mistassini, would you consider to be fit for settlement ?
A. From what can be seen by following the principal watercourses and occasional runs inland, I may say that over two-thirds of the land area should be fit for cultivation, for there are no mountains of any great extent, and the land generally rises in easy swells from the lower levels of the river basin, and unless extensive swamps may exist in the level plains between the main waterways, there is no reason why the greater part of the country would not be fit for settlement, should climatic conditions prove favourable.
He speaks of the climate and then goes on to a description of the grain and other crops :
4th. What description of grain and root crops do you consider could be profitably raised

it there were railway communications through the centre of this territory ? And is the country suitable for raising live stock !
A. Oats, barley, pease and buckwheat. Wheat has been raised at Waswanipy, about the centre of the' region in question, and the grain grown from seed raised there succeeded as well as from the seed sent there by Dr. R. Bell, director of the Geological Survey, from the experimental farm.
5th. Is the country well timbered, and with what kind of timber ?
A. The country is, in general, well 'covered with spruce, the chief marketable timber ; poplar and bouleau (white birch) are also found in abundance, wherever forest fires have made their marks. Banksian or jack pine is seen in the forest districts, but there is no white or yellow pine beyond the'height of land, with the exception of a few scraggling groves in the neighbourhood of Lake Abbittibbi.
Now, the right Rev. W. Carpenter Bom-pas, Bishop of Selkirk, who has lived nearly all his life in the territory says :
The approach of your railway to Hudson's bay I think most valuable in every way, both in the way of commerce and in defence of the Dominion, if needful. Tour further course, by way of Norway House, Green lake, Athabasca Landing and Lesser Slave lake, I deem very advantageous in the way of commerce and partly for settlement of the country, and especially as a route of communication with the far north country of Mackenzie river and the far northern lakes, Great Slave lake and Great Bear lake, with their fine fur country and the rich timber and soil country of Athabasca.
Then you come to Peace river, which I deem one of the chief gems of the whole Dominion. I think it certain to be settled up as soon as .your railway reaches it. It has been a shame that so fine a country should remain unsettled only for want of some means of communication with it.
Permit me, Sir, to quote also from a very eminent man employed by the Department of Lands and Forests in the province of Quebec, Mr. Crysostome Langelier, who has written a book on this section of the province of Quebec, under the title ' Le Bassin Meridional de la Baie d'Hudson. He says:
In all the southern basin of this bay no mountains nor continuous highlands are to be met. Properly speaking, there are no basins, the river is simply running across vast plains level almost with the general surface of the soil.
In the region nearest Hudson's bay the ice has left no marks of erosion. ******
What has just been said indicates that there are no mountains in the southern basin of Hudson's bay. A few hills here and there can only be noticed. They are of such small elevation above the general range of the ground that they seem to have been placed there simply to make one remark the general uniformity of these Silurian plains. One cannot even see there, those small hills formed by masses of gravel or other diluvian compounds, which are to be met in the plains of the Saskatchewan, where they have been gathered up in mounds by the currents which ran between the Caribbean sea and Hudson's bay. The area of good farm land comprised in this region is immense. The soil is formed Mr. LEMIEUX.
of that clay which in our province supplies the most fertile tracts. Nearly in all directions the clay lies in thick strata, which form an arable land of inexhaustible fertility. These layers of clay are sometimes intermingled with sand or gravel, which only adds to their value as land fit for cultivation. This clay is sometimes to be found in compact masses, but in general it has been brought there by the action of the water combined with that of the ice, and in that state it is far more friable and of far more easy cultivation.
These clay lands stretch from Lake Mistassini to Churchill river, in all that flat country which surrounds the southern part of Hudson's bay. That is to say, that they cover an area of about 250,000 square miles. It is in this region, drained by Moose and Albany rivers, that they find their greatest development and seem to offer the best soil. This is nearly the opinion of Dr. Bell, who, during several years, has explored that country, as a member of the Geological Survey.

What has just been said can give a fair idea of the lands around James bay, and which stretch north of the Laurentian plateau, from Lake Mistassini to the source of Albany river. In the vicinity of Lake Mistassini the soil is equally good, as it is averred by Mr. James Richardson's report, a man whose experience and competency are well established : ' The land is composed of rich *soil, mixed with sand, well suited to agricultural purposes. This country lies on calcareous stratas, whose decomposition has resulted in forming a rich soil. The surface is level, not rising more than 30 feet above the lake, which fits that region for agricultural enterprise.' A soil just as good, if not better, is to be found in the region of Lake and River Abbittibbi. 'Lake Abbittibbi is surrounded on all sides by land formed of clay ; it is level region.
Here, I have given you the information of men who know, of men who have travelled in that country, of men who have studied the geological features of that country. It Is also well known that the plateau where the Rivers Ottawa, Gatineau and Li&vre meet, contains at least 10,000,000 acres fit for agriculture. We have the reports in the Department of Laud and Forests of the province of Quebec showing that this land can sustain at least half a million people. Our lumbermen will tell you-and there are some of them who sit in this House- that the water-powers are immense, splendid, and that country offers a great future for our pulp industry. Railways have wonderfully developed our timber resources of late years. They have also greatly helped our colonization movement. Let me quote what was said not long ago by the Quebec * Chronicle ' speaking of the Lake St. John district, where, as you are aware, there is a railway heavily subsidized by the government of Canada and by the government of the province of Quebec. A few weeks ago the directors of that railway went into that district to inspect the road and they reported that the movement of colonization was perhaps the most gratifying of all. The Quebec ' Morning Chronicle ' of August 1st, 1903. may be quoted ns follows :
The movement of -colonization is perhaps the most gratifying of all. The new townships north and west of Lake St. John are being rapidly ailed up in consequence of the generous policy of the railway company, which carries all new settlers and their effects free of charge. In Normandin nearly all the lots are -taken, and new settlers now have to go further, into the townships of Girard and Al-banel, some settlers being now as far as 75 miles from the railway. The surveyors on the line of the Trans-Canada Railway have discovered some magnificent land further west, and if this new railway goes on, as the whole population of the Saguenay ardently desires we may look for a great colonization movement In that direction.
It will be remembered that the province many years ago gave large subsidies-some people thought 1 too large-to the Lake St. John Railway. The wisdom of that policy is now amply justified, not only -by the progress and development of the country, but by the fact that the provincial treasury is to-day receiving a revenue from the lands and lumber trade of this district sufficient to pay the interest upon the subsidies granted. It is not often that governments get so direct a return tor aid to public works.
From all these facts it will be seen that this beautiful country is progressing in a marvellous manner, and it is not to be wondered at that the directors of the railway have returned from their annual inspection muen gratified with what they have seen, and full of confidence as to the future of the road.
Sir, for many years past, the government of the province of Quebec, and indeed the government of the province of Ontario, have been clamouring for better terms. Better terms for what ? Better terms because the provincial governments had not sufficient means to develop colonization.
I make bold to say that with this transcontinental railway traversing as it will the northern part of Ontario and the northern district of Quebec, the question of better terms will be partially solved: You thus give to colonization a new impetus, and you indirectly remit to the provinces what they have expended so liberally in the past, and which has benefited directly the federal government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the provinces of Que-bee and Ontario have been clamouring for better terms for years. Might I ask him when the province of Ontario asked for better terms except at the last conference to which it was invited ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is not conversant with history. If he will go to the Library he will find the resolutions adopted by the Quebec conference in 1887. which was presided over by the Premier of Ontario, no less a man than Sir Oliver Mowat.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there a request from Ontario at that time for better terms ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly, my hon. friend must be aware of that. One of the principal resolutions adopted at that conference referred to the better terms which have been demanded from the federal govrnmeut.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By Ontario ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: By Ontario, by Quebec, by Nova Scotia, by New Brunswick, by all the provinces except British Columbia. The same demand was repeated last winter, and the question is indeed a vital one for Ontario and Quebec. The reason why these provinces are clamouring for better terms is that they have not sufficient revenue to enable them to promote colonization. I repeat again that the construction of this railway in New Ontario and in New Quebec will partially solve the question of better terms. Coming now to the contract, I find that the government has made a bargain most advantageous to Canada. Compare this contract with the one passed between the Dominion government and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Compare the resources of the country in 1880 with those of fo-day and you will admit with me that the bargain with the Grand Trunk Pacific is an extraordinary good one. In rough figures and excluding all subsidies given the Canadian Pacific Railway-in recent years, we can say that this company has received from Canada : 1. $25,000,000 in cash. 2. $35,000,000 is completed works. 3. 25,000,000 acres of land.	,	,	.
The Grand Trunk Pacific receives no land grant. The land-at least under a reform government-wTilI remain the property of the settler. The Canadian Pacific Railway was exempt from taxation. The Grand Trunk Pacific will be subject like all other corporations to taxation. There were monopoly clauses in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract. It nearly threatened the Dominion with secession on the part of Manitoba.
This controversy of historical importance was carried on for several years between the Dominion and Manitoban governments regarding the terms and operation of what was called the 'monopoly' clause. The rights or restrictions which were so obnoxious to the provincial government are found in clause 15 of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's charter as follows :
For twenty years trom the date hereof no line of railway shall he authorized by the Dominion parliament to be constructed south of the Canadian Pacific Railway, from any point at or near the Canadian Pacific Railway, except such line as shall run south-west or to the westward of south-west, nor to within fifteen miles of latitude 49. And in the establishment of any new province in the Northwest Territories, provision shall be made for continuing such prohibition after such establishment until the expiration of the said period.
There is no such monopoly embodied in the present contract. Bygones are bygones -but one cannot help saying that the Canadian Pacific Railway has been royally treated by the Canadian people. The great company has certainly been quite a factor in

,	' Well, so long as the subject is one new ol
public knowledge I may frankly say that I knew what was coming. Mr. Hays has discussed the matter with me on several occasions, but until a definite conclusion was reached By the company I did not feel at liberty to speak of It. I am free to confess that in my judgment the development of the Canadian North-west and British Columbia will be so rapid in the next few years as to afford ample traffic for three transcontinental lines, and I am glad to know that the Grand Trunk Railway Company seeks to share in that development. To build a railway from Gravenhurst or North Bay through New Ontario, across Manitoba and the Territories to the Pacific coast via the Pine or Peace river passes the route which, I believe, the Grand Trunk Railway contemplates to adopt- cannot be less than 2,500 miles. It is a pretty big undertaking, but it has been done before, and can certainly be accomplished again.'
Mr. BROCIv. There is nothing about Moncton there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Mr. CHARLTON.: That relates to Toronto chiefly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let me remind my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) that he himself is quoted by Mr. Castell Hopkins, a good Tory of Toronto, as saying :
Mr. Brock, M.P., said that it would be an inestimable boon to the country.


William Rees Brock: What would be ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: In all frankness, I must say. however, that my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) explained to me last night that he meant another route. I do not know if it was further north or further south, but he meant some other route than the one contemplated in the present Bill. I accept the explanation of the hon. gentleman. I only hope he does not decry this route because it has originated in the mind of the Liberal party.
You have also probably heard, air. Speaker, of a gentleman well known in my province, the Hon. L. P. Pelletier, the would-be leader of the Conservative opposition in the legislature of Quebec. Not long ago this gentleman made a speech in one of the dining rooms of the House of Commons, in which I believe, he invented the phrase, that the people would consider this scheme as ' Coxey's scheme.' Speaking in Toronto, on Wednesday last, the same gentleman

An hon. aiEMBER. Who is that?
air. LEailEUX. air. L. P. Pelletier, the organiser of the future victories of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, in Toronto the day before yesterday, he is reported as having spoken as follows :
Yesterday he had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Blair denounce the government on the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. It was grand the manner in which Mr. Blair asked Sir Wilfrid why he could not wait. It was Senator Cox who could


Rodolphe Lemieux: not wait. The proposed road was to be built through a country the birds only knew about. The building of the road was an outrage. An enormous amount of money was to be expended for the construction of a road from which the country would receive no benefit whatever.
But, Sir, the same Mr. Pelletier-I have the paper here-oh ! that my enemy had written a book-on the 28th of November, 1902, speaking at a banquet, where my hon. friend the able Minister of Justice was present, spoke as follows-I repeat his statements verbatim :
Gentlemen, you will before long spread your wings and look for a future in this province which is yours ; if you wish her to be prosperous she must prosper with you. An immense project has not long ago been traced on the map of Canada. We are to go In the districts of Keewatln and Athabaska to exploit the natural wealth which the Canadian Pacific Railway has not yet attained. To this we applaud with both hands-and the statesman who conceived the gigantic scheme of the Canadian Pacific Railway must thrill with joy in his grave.
But we say :	Will this be done for the
greatest advantage of Canada or to the benefit of some American ports ? We have in the northern region of this province seventy million acres of land-as good, as fertile as the western lands. We are able-by an all-Canadian raU-l'oad-which will be the shortest route to develop our own resources as well as the western ones.
This is the same gentleman who spoke to my Tory friends about ' Ooxey's scheme,' and who now appeals to the electors of Ontario against it.
Let me come back to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. We have not only to look at the interviews he gave some months, ago. Human nature is liable to contradict itself after such a length of time. But let us read the statement which he made before this House when the ministerial explanations were given as to what I will call the causes of his resignation ; but, as I have said, these have not been clearly revealed to me as yet. In that speech, which he delivered on the 16th of July, he quoted from his letter to the Premier as follows :
As I have said, I am in favour of the whole line being built and owned by government ; but having abandoned any expectation in that regard I am equally in favour of the whole line being a company line, if any portion of it, or a substantial portion, is to be a company line, and therefore I am prepared, since Council has determined to go forward with this undertaking at once, to co-operate with my colleagues in guaranteeing the bonds over the whole- line to an extent not exceeding three-quarters of the cost of the construction of the railway.
Therefore, the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, who threw so much ridicule on the project the other evening, who said that it was one of Senator Cox's schemes, and that his conscience would not allow him to stay in the government and defend it-that same gentleman said not many days

ago that he was in favour of a company building the whole line, extending from Quebec to Port Simpson, with the government guaranteeing three-fourths of its cost.
Now, Sir, what, according to the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals, is the cost of the construction of such a line ? He puts it at $139,000,000 for the whole line from Moncton to Port Simpson. Let us deduct $19,000,000 for the portion from Moncton to Quebec, which he is not willing to assist in constructing, and for the other portion there remains a balance of $120,000,000. Three-fourths of that amount makes $90,000,000, which the hon. gentleman was ready to guarantee.


Mr. BARKER.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? Is he under the impression that the government is guaranteeing three-fourths of the cost of the eastern section.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, Sir, I am repeating the words of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, which show that he is not consistent in the declarations he has made.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman answer my question ? Is he under the impression that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, was speaking of guaranteeing only three-fourths of the whole cost, and does he say that the present scheme is to guarantee three-fourths of the whole cost ? The hon. gentleman says the whole cost is $120,000,000, three-quarters of which is $90,000,000. He forgets that we provide the cash for the 1,800 miles of the eastern section.


Rodolphe Lemieux: One would require to make a whole speech on the question brought up by the- hon. gentleman. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the government is at present very bitterly attacked by a leading party organ of the Conservative party, the Montreal ' Star.' It is interesting to read what the ' Star ' said on November the 3rd, 1902, on this subject:



THE GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
As announced by a special cablegram trom our London correspondent on Thursday, a second railway to the Pacific coast in Canada is to be constructed in connection with the Grand Trunk system. The work will involve the building of 2,500 to 3,000 miles of railway, and the expenditure of from $75,000,000 to $100,000,000. That the great North-west needs additional railway connections with eastern Canada is obvious. The recognition of this fact and the construction of a second Pacific line under the auspcies of the statesmen who so boldly proclaimed that the first could never earn enough money to pay for its axle grease is a splendid vindication of the policy which brought the pioneer road into existence.
Of the merits of the particular scheme adopted for providing western Canada with the required additional railway facilities it will be impossible to judge until further details are announced. It is to be hoped that provision will be made by parliament for ensuring that the immense traffic of the new transcontinental line shall always find its way to Canadian ports.
The ' Star ' of to-day materially differs from the Montreal ' Star ' of the 24th November last. Let me quote also a statement made by the Conservative premier of the North-west Territories, Mr. Haul tain. In an interview with that gentleman, published in the Montreal ' Star ' of the 27th of November last, he is reported as having said :
I believed that at the end of five years, if there were two transcontinental railways, they would have all the grain they could carry, that is, so far as the Territories are concerned. At present there is a serious blockade, and the farmers are accordingly losing 10 cents a bushel on their grain. I have letters from, the west complaining that buyers have taken advantage of the situation and reduced the price 10 cents a bushel below what it is at Fort William, leaving out the ordinary railway freight rate.
I intend to see Sir Thomas Shaughnessy and ascertain whether it is not possible to obtain relief in some way.
What did Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway say on this subject ? I find that in an interview on November 27th, 1902
Mahlon K. Cowan: What paper '!


Rodolphe Lemieux: Montreal ' Star ' of course, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy said in reply to the question : ' How about the Grand Trunk Railway proposed invasion ?
There is plenty of room for another road north of us, but, at the same time, the settled districts are already well served by lines. As a matter of fact, I should estimate that there Is not a fifth or a sixth of the land within 10 miles of the lines up there which are under cultivation. If the Grand Trunk goes in as a colonizer, there is plenty of work ahead for it and for other roads as well. It is a big, growing country, and is only beginning to develop.
I could quote Sir Sanford Fleming, I could quote the hon. leader of the opposition himself.


Mr. INGRAM.: Could the hon. gentleman quote any Conservative papers since the scheme came out ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is really too innocent. He expects too much from the Conservative papers. Mr. Meighen, who is ardently interested in the Canadian Pacific Railway and who is a brother-in-law of Lord Mount Stephen, said :
Another point : In granting a charter for a transportation company of this character, it should be specifically mentioned that the terminals, both on the Pacific and the Atlantic, should be on Canadian territory. We do not want to furnish transportation for American railway and shipping companies. We want to develop our own country and its ports.
Mr. Gear, president of the Montreal foreign exchange, gives this opinion in the Montreal ' Star.'
I think there is ample room in the west for not only the Grand Trunk Railway, but other

lines as well. The Grand Trunk Railway will open up a country of great agricultural promise, abounding in mineral resources and forest wealth.
This is taken from the 'Star' of November the 24th, 1902. In that same paper Senator Forget, one of the leaders of the Conservative party in the province of Que-bee, m fact the financier of the Conservative party in that province, is quoted as saving :	J
The establishment of a second transcontinental railway by the Grand Trunk is the best thing that could happen to Canada. It is the one great thing that will cause settlers to have great confidence in the west, and by doing so will especially benefit the Canadian Pacific Railway from the very time that such an announcement was made.


Samuel Barker: Can you find something about the line from Moncton to Winnipeg V


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall try and gratify my hon. friend. Mr. Reford was quoted a few days ago by the Minister of Finance. Let me quote another authority on the transportation question. Mr. H. Montague Allan, of the Allan Line. Mr. Allan said :


Mr.   H.@: Montagu Allan, of H. & A. Allan, shipping agents, said :	'I am strongly in favour
of the Bill as a whole, but have not had time as yet to take it up in detail. The shortening of the route from Quebec to Moncton will not, in my estimation, have a detrimental effect upon the Intercolonial. What we want is the shortest possible through route.'


An hon. MEMBER.: What politics 7


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is a well known Conservative.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who was his father'?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The father of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Let me now quote Mr Thomas Harling, of the Canadian Lake and Ocean Navigation Company. Mr Harling said :
Mr. Thomas Harling, of the Canadian Lake and Ocean Navigation Company and the Canadian Ocean and Inland Line, said : 1 Although there are some features to which objection might be taken, I think that on the whole the Bill is favourable to the development of the country. As regards the question of paralleling the Intercolonial, I would say that the shorter the line can be made to the seaboard, the better the chances to obtain business. The long line debars business at present, and cannot compete with the shorter lines to Portland and Boston.'
Mr. Alexander McFee, a good Conservative from Montreal, and ex-president of the board of trade said :
Mr. Alex. McKee, ex-president of the board of trade, said :	' The proposed shortening of
the route from Quebec to Moncton must be a part of this scheme. The Intercolonial should not be taken into consideration at all, for it being in touch with these centres, is the commercial needs of to-day. The government should enable the Grand Trunk Pacific to make its Part of the undertaking a financial success, so that it will not be hampered in providing Mr. LEMIEUX.
rolling stock, &c. What is of the greatest importance, after the rails are laid, is proper facilities for handling all the freight that offers. The Grand Trunk has shown admirable enterprise in double-tracking its present lines, and it is for the people to encourage it. There are no two opinions about it, that if we are to bring the products of the industrial centre in the east in touch with the west, the Grand Trunk, being in touch with these centres, is the company that should be supported. In speaking of the east, Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces must be considered together, and consequently this transcontinental railway must bring the Atlantic seaboard in 'touch with the west.'
This gentleman is a well-known Conservative of Montreal. He has appeared before our committees several times. He belongs to the Albany Club of Montreal, if there is any Albany Club there. His opinion under the present circumstances is highly valuable to the government. But, Sir, these are not the only pebbles on the beach. Let us read what Sir William Yan Horne says. I quote from the New York ' Evening Post ' :
' Canada,' he said, ' has been adding sides to her hopper for a long time

This, you will see, is quite a historic interview.
-but has neglected to enlarge the spout. She has for years been spending millions generously in the development of the interior and her railways, but has neglected her outlet to the Atlantic. Her crops and industries have grown and the hopper is simply full to overflowing, and tlje outlet at Montreal is not large enough. Her exports take the easy routes by the great lakes and the Erie canal to Boston and New York,' simply because Canada sits comfortably by and does not see what she is losing. . . . The position of the Canadian Pacific Railway is absolutely unassailable. For that reason, it is our policy never to oppose anything. The trans-Canada road has started with better prospects than the Canadian Pacific had once. When the Northern Pacific road was built, everybody thought It was way up north beyond nowhere. Then the Great Northern was built, and people promptly forgot thinking of the Northern Pacific as far north. Then came the Canadian Pacific, and that seemed to run through the Arctic regions. We would hail with delight a parallel route from Atlantic to Pacific to help us develop the country. There is enough of it up there for us all.
The next question is, will the construction of this road hurt the Intercolonial Railway ? And here I desire to accept the challenge made by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair). He said this scheme was an outrageous scheme, and that neither he nor any of his officers had been consulted. If any of the officers of the Intercolonial Railway had been consulted, he was sure that they would have condemned the whole scheme. Well, Sir, I have a friend on the Intercolonial Railway. We have had very few friends on that road, we of the Liberal party. I have asked my friend if the construction of this road would injure the Intercolonial Railway. I have his answer here. Mark my words, this gentle-

man, whose name I am not at liberty to [DOT]give, but whose name I will give to any lion, member, provided he will not divulge it


William Rees Brock: We will take your word for it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Thanks-this gentleman is one of the highest officers of the road, one who has handled the freight and passenger traffic for twenty years. He writes me under date of August 10th, 1903, as follows :
I take the first chance to give you a synopsis of my ideas as to how the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway-when built-will affect the Intercolonial Railway.
While many of our opponents are factious enough to believe that the Intercolonial Railway will be ruined and merely become a local line, I for one, do not believe so, and to any moderate and reasonable man not affected by * too much ' party-who will take sufficient time and interest to look into this matter-I think he will find, in my judgment, that instead of the Intercolonial Railway being ruined, that its earning powers will be greatly increased.
For many reasons which I can adduce, among which is the fact that the public should understand that the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be two distinct corporations traversing two different parts of Canada, and in no way connected with each other, except in their mutual stock interest. That the government have a contract at the present time for 99 years with the Grand Trunk Railway whereby they are to hand over, and do hand over to the Intercolonial Railway at Montreal, all eastbound freight routed east of Quebec and Ldvis, and I understand that this contract can only be cancelled by the government giving to the Grand Trunk Railway twelve months' notice to that effect.
Now if what I say is correct, I fail to see where the Intercolonial Railway will lose any of this eastbound freight that they are now getting, and I take it when the Grand Trunk Pacific is finished through to Moncton, that the winter export business, which the Intercolonial Railway does not get now, and are not likely to get in the future ; so that instead of the Intercolonial Railway losing business, rather it will gain largely in its earnings on what I call the two Atlantic divisions from Moncton to St. John, N.B., and Moncton to Halifax, as this new road will hand over at Moncton. train-loads of export stuff, which will reach the trans-Atiantic steamers at the two points named, so that the earning powers of the Intercolonial Railway will be greatly increased on these two divisions, more than making up for any deficit that might occur on its main line between Levis and Moncton, but I do not admit that any decrease will take place even on that section, for the reason that, as already stated, the Grand Trunk Railway handing over their traffic freight from Ontario and the west to the Intercolonial Railway, owing to the increase of traffic caused by the opening of that section, which will give the Intercolonial Railway much more freight than they receive at the present time, so that I cannot see why these gentlemen can say that the Intercolonial Railway will be ruined.
It is a well known fact that in 1867, when the Intercolonial Railway was built, it was not talked of as a transcontinental road, but considered a link in the confederation chain between the east and west. Besides, at that time the line was looked upon as being more a military road. This was a strong argument for its being built by the north shore of the St. Lawrence, owing to any trouble that might arise in case of war with the United States, which was then a very much discussed subject.
Again, it will be noted that the Grand Trunk Pacific will pass through a fine section of the province of New Brunswick. As a matter of fact this section is considered almost a virgin forest, well wooded with timber, pulpwood, &c., &c., and will open up fine farming lands, splendid water-powers, &c.
Now as to the comparative distances from LSvis to St. John, N.B., and Moncton via Intercolonial Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific, the following statement I believe was pretty
near the mark, viz. :-
Miles.
Ldvis to	Moncton,	by I.C.R	
488Ldvis to	Moncton,	by G.T.P	
368Saving in favour of G.T.P	
120
Mileage from Levis to Moncton by Grand Trunk Pacific made up as follows :-
Miles.
Ldvis to	Connors,	N.B	
130Connors	to Edmunston, N.B	
32Edmunston to Nashwaak	
123Nashwaak to Chipman	
32Chipman to Moncton	
51Total	
368
L6vis to St. John, N.B., by Grand Trunk Pacific as follows :-
Miles.
Ldvis to Chipman, as above	 317
Chipman to St. John, N.B., to	be built.. 66
Total	 383
L'dvis to St. John, N.B., by I.C.R	 577
Saving in miles by G.T.P. to St. John. 214
I am quite well satisfied that looking into this matter calmly, and what I know of that section, that the building of this line from Winnipeg to Moncton will eventually redound to the credit of the Laurier government.
Here you have from one of the leading officials of the Intercolonial Railway, a man who has managed the freight and passenger department at St. John, at Moncton, at Montreal and at Quebec, the statement that instead of lessening the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway, this new road will greatly increase them. He says also in his letter that the Intercolonial Railway was built as a military road. I need not recall to the House-I have been speaking too long already-that the Intercolonial Railway was constructed from an imperial point of view. I need not recall here the early history of its construction. The House is familiar with it. The long route known as the Robinson trace, was selected in preference to others, because it was considered the safest in the event of war with the United States, and because, at all seasons, the troops could have access to our Canadian ports.

Let me read, Sir, a few extracts from a memorandum presented by Sir John A. Macdonald to the imperial authorities at the inception of the Intercolonial Railway, and you will see that as far back as 1858 the people looked upon the Intercolonial, not as a commercial venture, but as a purely military route, built for the only purpose of protecting Canada against any contemplated aggression on the part of the United States. The fears entertained by Sir John Macdonald, of our neighbours were not received with the same levity, as the [DOT] fears expressed the other day by the premier were by our hon. friends opposite. I find the following in his memorandum :
We would further mention some facts which show that while the means of resisting invasion are in no way increased, the facilities for accomplishment are daily becoming greater. There are now no less than seven American railways terminating directly at the Canadian boundary, and a far greater number touching the waters of the River St. Lawrence, and the Lakes Ontario and Brie which divide Canada from the United States. All these roads may be said to form together a continuous line, running parallel with, or in easy proximity to, the provincial boundary ; and by their means, America would be enabled to concentrate, with the utmost expedition and ease, all her forces upon any quarter, and to choose her own point of attack.
Was this a bogy, as stated the other night by the ex-Minister of Railways ? Sir John A. Macdonald spoke of a possible invasion, just as the leader of this government spoke of possible complications with the United States, which might bring about the cancellation of the bonding privilege. Sir John added :
It may be urged that war with America is impossible, or at least an event so unlikely and remote as to justify no expenditure in anticipation of it. Admitting that the character and moderation of the federal government afford assurance of continued amity, it is not to be forgotten that there are other elements, not subordinate, whose influence may at any time become too powerful for control. The best safeguard against aggression is the power of repelling it.
Sir, this is a state paper well worthy the name and the pen of Sir John A. Macdonald:
The knowledge of our weakness and exposure to attack may do much to precipitate that which, were our strength understood, would never be undertaken. It is now well known that, being cut off from England, the province cannot make her resources and strength available should the necessity for their exercise unhappily come to pass ; and when the occasion does arise, it will be too late to provide rhe means. The road cannot be constructed without a due regard to reasonable economy for several years, and experience shows how impossible it is to foresee what events within that period may interrupt the friendly relations with a country the peculiar constitution of which vests so much power in a class whose interests or passions may, at any time, prompt them to acts which would necessarily lead to a rupture. While, therefore, the commercial or material


Rodolphe Lemieux: advantages to Canada which would follow the construction of the road are comparatively unimportant, she feels it her duty to urge the high national considerations which demand that the work should be undertaken.
I could quote also from the addrqss sent by the Canadian people to the Queen in August, 1858, bearing on the same subject. But I have quoted enough to show conclusively that the Intercolonial was built as an imperial highway, as a military route, and was not considered from a commercial point of view. Will the new road from Moncton to Quebec parallel the Intercolonial Railway ? We have been told that it will. Sir, I am familiar with the district through which it will pass, and I am only sorry to say that this road will not traverse the beautiful counties of Gaspe and Bona-venture. But I will not belittle this great question with local or selfish interests ; I will have an opportunity of speaking to the government, and of speaking loudly, when the time comes for the government to implement the promises that have been made by the previous Conservative administrations to the counties of Gaspe and Bona-venture many years ago. I say that the new1 line will not parallel the Intercolonial. There are points of divergence which range from 70 to 80 miles. As the leader of the government said the other day, there are mountains between those two lines. But what if the two lines were parallel ? We all remember that when the Canadian Pacific Railway was first constructed between Ottawa and Quebec at was contended that it would ruin the Richelieu Navigation Company, and also the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which runs south of the St. Law-ence. What has been the result ? The Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company has never paid higher dividends than since the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed. The Grand Trunk Company has doubled its traffic, and the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway line between Montreal and Ottawa and Quebec Is that part which pays the best. Moreover the Canadian Pacific Railway between Ottawa and Montreal has not only constructed a line on the north shore of the Ottawa river, but it has constructed the short line. We have added to the Intercolonial the Drummond County Railway, which was so vigorously oposed by our friends opposite, in order that more transportation facilities might be provided for the growing traffic of the Intercolonial Railway, and the Drummond Railway parallels the Grand Trunk.
Will this new line be a wheat carrying road ? Sir Wm. Van Horne and others have expressed grave doubts as to the probability of this road carrying any wheat east of Lake Superior. It has been said that an all-rail route could not compete with our water route as regards rates. I will admit that our water route will always give the harvests of the west a cheaper

transportation, provided we equip wisely and intelligently our harbours and channels, but no one can deny that we have a winter, and that during five or six months our river is closed. But this road will not only be a wheat carrying road. There will be in a near future an enormous traffic of the widest variety between the east and west. The wheat output must not only rivet our attention-far from it. Has there not sprung up a cattle trade ? Will not the western ranches increase year by year ? Who could deny that this cattle trade does not and shall not depend chiefly upon an all-rail route ? Besides, this new road through its connections in Ontario and Quebec, will afford our manufacturing interests an easier access to the western market.
I am not an extreme protectionist, but I can presume that some day or other our tariff may possibly be raised against the United States.


William Rees Brock: Why not at once ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Time will tell.


William Rees Brock: But time will not wait.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let me tell my hon. friend that when the tariff is raised, when we have duties as high as he desires, the whole country, Ontario and Quebec chiefly, according to his own statements, will be teeming with industries, and our manufacturing interests will be largely developed. Then, Sir, will my hon. friend be satisfied with the water route and will he not prefer to expedite his products and merchandise to his North-west consumers by the all-rail route ? But, I have been told that the allrail route can successfully compete with the water route. Of course, I may be wrong, I do not wish to prophesy upon such a doubtful subject, but I am told that immense quantities of wheat are sent from Chicago to New York by the all-rail route and that the proportion is even sixty per cent of the western wheat harvests ; that though the Chicago shippers have the option of the lake route in summer, the railways get their share of the traffic; that they hold their own and that they pay large dividends, although their lines are far from direct. What are the rates ? By the all-rail route from Chicago to New York the rate is 8-4 cents per bushel, the terminal charges are 1-25 cents a bushel, making the total rate 9455 cents per bushel. To-day the Canadian Pacific Railway charge for carriage on their rail and lake route from Winnipeg to Montreal, is 13-4 cents to 15'4 cents per bushel. Then, the American railways on an all-rail haul succeed in getting the rate nearly 4 cents below the Canadian Pacific Railway with its lake and rail route, and as I said a minute ago they pay 276
dividends. This is done by easy gradients as was explained the other night by the hon. member for North Norfolk. Therefore, if such is the case, we can safely hope that this new national transcontinental road may become a wheat carrying road.
Sir, the right hon. Prime Minister referred in his speech the other day to the possible hostile attitude of the United States. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals ridiculed the idea, and he added that during the seven years he had been in the cabinet he had not heard a thrill on this subject. Has he forgotten the attitude taken by the United States about our Yukon Territory ? Has he forgotten the attitude of the United States upon the Alaska boundary question ? I need not refer to our many baptisms of blood in former days not to speak of the filibustering raids before and since confederation, but can he forget the McKinley tariff and the Dingley tariff-which are an illustration of what a policy of discrimination can be towards a friendly neighbour ? Has he forgotten the Washington treaty of 1871, or how it was carried out by the United States ? Has he forgotten the draft treaty of 1874, a treaty which was prepared by the late Hon. George Brown, the father of the Liberal party in Ontario, a treaty signed by the British ambassador, by the Canadian representative and finally rejected by the United States Congress ? Has he forgotten the draft treaty of 1888 ? Has he forgotten their treatment of Canada in the Behring Sea award ? The right hon. Prime Minister said that a time may come when complications, which God forbid, might arise, which would bring about the cancellation of the bonding privilege. This statement was hailed with derisive cheers, and I was surprised to see with what levity, nay, with what scorn, such an announcement was received from hon. gentlemen opposite and from the Conservative press at large.
Sir, is it possible that in our day and generation, the hon. gentlemen should be, to that extent, at variance with themselves, and their principles ? I remember the day, not far distant, when our leaders were loudly accused of disloyalty because they advocated reciprocity with the United States. I remember those inflammatory speeches in which the Liberal party was roundly abused on account of its so-called annexationist proclivities. We were charged with disloyalty, nay worse, with treason. The echoes of the memorable campaign of 1891 still ring in my ears.
Times have changed, and the history of the last eight or ten years has proven how utterly false and despicable were those charges. But, Sir, where do the extreme loyalists of yore stand ? The idea of an all-Canadian route is despised ; a policy of ' Canada for the Canadians ' is received with contempt ! Yet, Sir,- is not the danger



pointed out by the Prime Minister a tangible one ? It may be argued that the bonding privilege is of mutual benefit to botli countries. Tliis I readily grant. But I make bold to say that the cancellation of the bonding privilege would injure Canada to a greater extent than the United States.
I can safely assert that not an insignificant portion of the American press and a very large body of aggressive American politicians-for reasons we can easily detect-are decidedly opposed to that bonding privilege. The New York ' Sun ' has been quoted, I could refer to the ' American Expansionist; ' the presidential message of Cleveland has been read, I could recall the deliberations of a special committee of the Congress appointed in 1890, to study the commercial relations with Canada. Has not the Canadian Pacific Railway itself been threatened many a time with the American hostility ? There are not a few who in the United States consider the Canadian Pacific Railway as a great military highway for the benefit of the imperial government.
Sir William Yan Horne took it upon himself to go to Boston and deliver a speech upon that very question. Speaking on December 12, 1892, he said :
It is pretty clear from the evidently inspired utterances of a section of the public press, and from the reported presence of a powerful lobby at Washington, that an organized attempt is to be made to secure legislation restricting or destroying the competition of the Canadian railway lines ; and in support of the movement the most absurd mis-statements are put out, calculated to excite prejudice against the Canadian railways. The Canadian Pacific Railway particularly is made to appear as an arm of the British empire sustained and kept alive by unlimited subsidies
for the purpose of destroying American commerce.
I have quoted this speech in order to demonstrate how uncertain and how frail is this bonding privilege. We are practically at the mercy of our powerful neighbour. Complications which I do not anticipate, but for which we may not be directly responsible, may at any time,, put an end to the bonding privilege. Such being the ease, apart from the purely commercial aspect, I say that the construction of a new transcontinental railway, binding together as it does those rich and vast territories and traversing Canadian soil from sea to sea, freeing us from any foreign bondage should any complications arise in the future, is a project of national importance to Canada.
Sir, can we afford to build a new transcontinental railway ? Ret us compare the condition of Canada fifty years ago with what it is to-day,' and let us from that, judge what Canada will be fifty years from to-day, when this contract shall be at an end. The following is a comparative statement showing the advancement of Canada in the matter of population, foreign trade and railways and also showing the enormous growth of the three cities of Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa :
1850.	1900.
Population	 1,842,265	5,371,315
Foreign trade.. ..$34,000,000	$448,000,000
Railways, 66, 18,140 miles worth. .$1,100,000,000
1860.	1903.
Montreal	 90,000 with suburbs 300,009
Toronto	
44 000	"	259,000Ottawa	
14,000	"	70,000
The following figures will indicate the progress we have made since 1896 :
	18!)G.	1903.	Increase.	Per cent.
				
Si	9	$	Imports entered for consumption	105,301,161	224,816,612	119,000,000	113Exports, the produce of Canada	109,707,805	214,401,675	105,000,000	97Total trade	215,068,906	430,218,287	224,000,000	104Revenue	36,000,000	GG, 000,000	30,000,000	90Railway earnings	50,000,000	83,000.000	33,000,060	60Exports, the produce of the mines	8,000,000	34,000,000	26,000,000	325Exports of manufactures	9,000,000	20,00(),000	11,000,000	120Bank assets.. . 	316,000,000	581,000,000	255,000,000	80
Canadian unity, Sir, has been accomplished by the patriotic, by the unfaltering work of three generations of men. The story of the marvellous change of which we are to-day the happy witnesses falls into three periods each with its own special watchword. The historic struggle for responsible government-for Canadian liberty, marks the first period. Then came confederation, bind-


Rodolphe Lemieux: ing together the several British provinces scattered over the North American continent. The third period bears witness to the long looked for unity of the Canadian nation, a unity brought about, not only by the obliteration of racial and religious prejudices through the social intercourse, but also-and in a large degree-through the civilizing influence of commercial relations, so highly

developed by this great agent of civilization -the railway.
Responsible government, confederation and Canadian unity, these are, Sir, the successive ideals which followed each other in a natural process of historic development. Before resuming my seat I can not help expressing the opinion that the launching of this second transcontinental railway will, in the eyes of history, be considered as the crowning act of the Prime Minister's parliamentary career. To him, as well as to his great rival, Sir John A. Macdonald, will be due the two great Canadian highways. Meternich's bitter phase in reference to Italy : It is but a geographical expression : shall never apply to Canada.'


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I believe that Canada's further national development and welfare demands a second transcontinental railway. I believe that government ownership throughout of such a railway would be in the best interests of the country and people, both present and future. But as it has been shown that only one member of the cabinet, as it was, supported government ownership throughout, and as the feeling in parliament in its favour is confined to a few members on the Liberal side, to wait until belief in government ownership had grown sufficiently to ensure the building of a transcontinental railway as a government work, would mean leaving the western country without a competing outlet, either east or west, too long for the good of either west or east. If we cannot get what we want, the next best thing is to get what we can, on the best terms we can. That being the case, I support the present arrangement. Because it doubles the industrial and productive area of Canada. Because it doubles opportunity for every man in Canada. Because it offers the shortest and best all Canadian line from tide water to tide water, summer and winter. Because it is the only all-British railway across the continent under one management. Because it is so situated as to be most secure from foreign invasion ; giving depth, and therefore, strength to our country, to the advantage of both Canada and the empire. Because it gives development and competition in transportation to 1,200 miles of grain growing country in the west, as compared with 400 miles of such country developed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Because it develops vast coal fields on the Saskatchewan, Athabasca, and Peace rivers, for the supply of fuel to the prairies. Because it gives the most northwesterly part of the prairie region, which is furthest from the Atlantic, a short outlet to the Pacific. Because it connects the railway system of Canada with 2,000 miles of steamboat navigation on the Athabasca, Peace. Liard and Mackenzie rivers, their great lakes, and the Arctic ocean. Because it develops mining and lumbering in, 2761
northern British Columbia and provides facilities for profitable interchange of mutual necessities between the prairies and mountain regions of the far west. Because it ensures a third railway outlet from and through the wheat fields to the lakes. Because it develops a thousand miles of northern Ontario and Quebec, at present unknown and inaccessible. Because it cuts nearly 200 miles off the present Intercolonial! distance between Quebec and Canada's nearest winter port, St. John. Because by government ownership and control of rates, with modern construction, and adequate equipment, it provides an all-year-round outlet for western grain ; and gives the merchants and manufacturers of eastern Canada profitable access to the market of the great west. Because it does this without land grant, tax exemption or provincial or local aid of any kind. Because it induces the investment of one hundred millions of British capital in Canada ; and correspondingly interests the British public in Canada's welfare. Because co-operation with the Grand Trunk Company secures effective, satisfactory and business-like operation ; ensures fulfilment of all engagements, provides business from the start, and secures the government from payment on its guarantee. Because by that cooperation all principal points in eastern Canada are put in direct connection with the west without extra cost. Because it transfers the through-traffic interests of the Grand Trunk, from the western states, to western Canada. Because it provides against over capitalization for effective government control of rates, and secures running rights to other roads throughout its whole length. Because an Atlantic outlet for the Canadian Northern, and extension of the Intercolonial to the wheat fields, is provided for without a cent of additional public cost. Because it gives maximum public control for a minimum public outlay, and absolute security for the financial responsibility assumed.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: Mr. Speaker, as it is pretty late in the evening, aud as a number of our members have gone to their homes, I move the adjournment of the debate.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Speaker, though it is yet somewhat early in the evening, as I am sure my hon. friend has an important speech to make, and as the attendance in the House is rather slim, I feel inclined for my part to agree to the motion of my hon. friend. But I would like to intimate to the House-and in this I hope I shall have its support-that commencing on Monday next our sittings ought to be more extended in evening than they have been up to the present time this session. I think- and in so saying I believe I also express the feeling of the House-that it is time we * should think of such a thing as prorogation.

Therefore, I propose that on and after Monday next the House should sit late, and even pretty late.


Andrew B. Ingram: I may say that the reason why a speaker on this side did not follow the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) this evening was owing to an arrangement which we had that he would speak about one hour, and that the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) would have an opportunity of beginning his speech not later than a quarter to ten; but as the hon. member for Gaspe spoke till about ten minutes past ten, the hon. member for Wentworth was precluded from making his speech this evening. I think this explanation is due to this side of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no fault to find.


Mr. S. E. GOURLEY (Colchester).: I wish to say, in answer to the Prime Minister, that I would like to listen, to the debate and understand it, and I can assure the right hon. gentleman, that sitting in the House from eleven o'clock in the morning till twelve at night, imposes upon any one, who cares to listen and understand, what is going on, a great mental task; and if he has anything to do beyond that time, he is driven from morning till night. Therefore, I would ask the Prime Minister, whether eleven or twelve o'clock, is not the latest hour, to which we shoull be called upon to sit ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know my hon. friend's feeling, but I may say that my mind is made up-I am ready to vote.


Mr. J. CLANCY (Bothwell).: I assume that the right hon. gentleman has of course consulted the leader of the opposition, as I think he would be entitled to do, before he made this announcement. The right hon. gentleman knows that we have commenced two sessions per day; and, while we all devoutly hope for an early prorogation, at the same time, he knows that we have entered upon the consideration of a class of legislation that should occupy the greater part of an ordinary session, and I hope he will defer committing the House to an understanding that we are to sit very late. He must see that that has somewhat the appearance of forcing the measure through at a time when members are not in the same trim that they are earlier in the session.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) We are in splendid trim on this side of the House.


James Clancy: In a word, I wish to call the right hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that his announcement will not be very well received.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have only to point out to my hon. friend, who is an old parliamentary hand, this fact, that this session we have not followed the rule which prevailed in my earlier days, when I first came into this parliament, not to adjourn


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: before twelve o'clock, sometimes not till one o'clock. I do not intend to force the discussion. On the contrary, I think the opposition should have every latitude. But, on the other hand, my hon. friend must admit that we should not adjourn at half past ten, but should sit later.


James Clancy: The right hon. gentleman knows that if we have been adjourning early, it has been at the instance and for the convenience of his own supporters. I am not at all complaining of that, but I would like the right hon. gentleman, before he comes to a final conclusion, to consult the leader of the opposition. It is only fair, I think, that that should be done.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: And at the time the right hon. gentleman first came to the House, the strenuous life was not as popular as it is now, and it depends on food and sleep. In those early days members of parliament had a stimulant of some kind, which enabled them to maintain an all night session, and which we do not have.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 17, 1903.