1903-09-01

Mr. B. RUSSELL (Hants).: I would like, ilr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, to make an observation in connection with the accident to the steamer [DOT] Grecian.' It seems that Captain Harrison, on coming in to Halifax harbour, availed himself of the services of a pilot. At the port of Halifax it is not compulsory on shipmasters to engage pilots, but they must pay pilotage ; and When a pilot is taken on board, the master of the vessel has the right to depend on him for the management of the ship. Captain Harrison engaged a pilot and gave him charge of the vessel. It is in evidence that he had some misgivings as to whether the pilot was conducting the steamer properly or not, and called his attention to certain matters in the course of navigation. But the pilot assured him that everything was all right, and the result was the ship was run on the rocks. An inquiry was held by a court presided over by Captain Spain. The result of the inquiry was that the court suspended the captain's certificate, apparently because the pilot did not take the ship safely into port, which, on the face of it, would appear to be a most outrageous judgment. The judgment was appealed from by Captain Harrison to the Admiralty Di-Mr. STEWART.
vision of the High Court of Justice in England. I wish to read a portion of the judgment, in order that the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may see that Captain Harrison has been completely vindicated, and to impress on the hon. gentleman the necessity of doing something In order to secure a more suitable court for the trial of questions of this sort, in which the reputations and livings of honest and honourable men are at stake. The president of the court said :
It appears to be clear that there is no fault seriously to be found with the Master
Everything which was done was done by the advice and under the direction of the pilot himself, and I do not see how it could be otherwise. It is suggested that the captain might have gone and looked at the chart, which means that the captain should have taken charge of the ship. I cannot help thinking that the criticism which my learned brother expressed just now really sums up the whole case. The court below treated the matter as if the captain was in charge himself and as if there was not such advice available as that of the pilot. I confess I am quite unable to take that view. It appears to me that the captain was quite right in allowing the ship to be guided by the advice and under the direction of the pilot.
The judgment of the court goes on to explain that Captain Harrison was free from any blame of any kind in connection with tbe navigation of the ship, and that the first court made a mistake in supposing that the captain was responsible for bringing the ship safely into port and in suspending the certificate of the captain because the pilot was remiss in the performance of his duty. The point I wish to bring before the Minister of Marine is this. If the inquiry had been made by the court at the instance of the boat'd of trade in England and the captain exonerated, his costs would have been paid by the board. By parity of reasoning, he ought now to be reimbursed in some way the costs he has been subjected to in order to vindicate his character and recover his certificate, and I would ask the hon. minister to carefully consider the matter and see whether he cannot discover some way of reimbursing the captain for the very serious expenses to which he has been put, altogether apart from the injury done the reputation lie bore, which was a very high one indeed. I would also ask the hon. minister to consider whether some other tribunal might not be created more competent to weigh evidence and possessed of something besides merely technical marine knowledge.
I beg to move the adjournment of the House.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine).: I shall examine into the matter and see what I can do.
Motion to adjourn withdrawn.



CANNING INDUSTRY, BRITISH COLUMBIA.

Mr. T. EARLE (Victoria, B.C.).: Has the hon. the Minister of Marine had any information from British Columbia regarding the fisheries ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. It. Prefontaine).: I have had no information from the head officer, who is away on the Quesnel spawning ground. He will be communicated with through Mr. Robinson, with whom I have been in communication since two or three days. I cannot do anything until I get a report from Mr. Sword, in view of the difference of opinion among those interested.


Mr. CLARKE.: How many days is it since the first communication with the hon. minister ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not remember exactly. The first communication, I think, was on Friday from the canners. I then telegraphed to Mr. Sword, and getting no answer I repeated the telegram. Mr. Robinson, his assistant, replied that Mr. Sword was at Quesnel, and it would take him two or three days to communicate with him. The answer of Mr. Robinson was to the effect that the fishermen differed entirely with the canners, and that the canners themselves were not unanimous, although the majority favoured the suggestion of closing the season. But until he got information from Mr. Sword there would be nothing done.


Thomas Earle: I have received a copy of a communication sent by the Fraser River Canners' Association to the minister, in which they refer to what took place the other day. In it the secretary of the association, Mr. Burdis, says that he telegraphed the resolution which I read in the House the other day, to all the representatives of British Columbia. In reply he received a telegram from the hon. member for Westminster saying :
Wire received. Reports here say salmon running unprecedentedly.
To this telegram Mr. Burdis replied :
Positively worst run sockeyes ever experienced. Canneries closed down. Only 180,000 cases up to date. Not a fish has been spawned at Fraser river hatcheries. Unless fishing stopped none will get there and industry dangerously threatened. Please so inform the department and local members.
Mr. Burdis goes on to say :
This morning I was instructed to address the following telegram to the hon. Senator Temple-man:
Referring our wire yesterday. Salmon industry threatened with total extinction. Immediate action necessary. Absolutely no salmon on upper Fraser. Stopping fishing immediately ; only possible remedy. Urge government reply promptly.
The canners are now anxiously awaiting the
receipt of your decision in the premises, and sincerely hope, for the sake of every person concerned, that their request in this connection has been conceded.
Awaiting your esteemed consideration and reply.



W. D. BURDIS.

[Stage Direction]
So that the statement with regard to the falling off in the quantity of the fish cannot be disputed. It ought to be possible for the government to get information from its agents right on the ground, even if Mr. Sword is not there.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Before the Orders of the Day are called it is my great regret, to inform the House of .the death of one of our colleagues, in the person of Mr. Pierre R. Martineau, member for Montmagny, who departed this life yesterday. Mr. Martineau was- a man yet in the prime of life, having reached the age of only a little over forty years. As everybody knows who had the honour of his acquaintance, he had been in poor health for many years, and could perform his duties as a representative of the people only at the price of great personal suffering; which he bore with remarkable patience. His was a most gentle character, as every one knows who had the pleasure of coming in contact with him; and he leaves a memory as a public man which will be held in honour, while amongst his friends his life and character will always be remembered with appreciation. I know that I voice the sentiments of this House when I say that we tender to his family the sincere expression of our sympathy.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I am sure that we on this side of the House fully concur in what has been said by the right lion. Premier. Thp praise he has bestowed on the memory of our late lamented friend is richly deserved. Mr. Martineau was to us all a great example. Ever since lie became a member of this House he has suffered from a painful disease, but in spite of it he performed his duties wonderfully well. He was a model in that respect. Although an invalid for so long, he was the perfection of courtesy, and those who had dealings with him always found him of even temper and saw him ever with a smile on bis face. To those who did not know Mr. Martineau as well as we do who live in the province of Quebec, I would say that he was known throughout the province as a lawyer of great talent and a man of deep convictions ; and when called upon to express those convictions he had all the eloquence Of sincerity. As I followed the remains of Mr. Martineau this morning, I felt, as we all feel, that the province of Quebec can ill afford to lose sucb men as our late lamented friend.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
The House' resumed adjourned debate on tlie motion of Sir AVilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting tbe construction of a National Transcontinental Railway, and tbe motion of Mr. Puttee in amendment thereto, and tbe amendment to the amendment of Mr. Boyd.
Mr. GEO. AV. FOWLER (King's, N. B.).: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow tbe example of some of tbe gentlemen who have preceded me and make an apology for speaking upon this question at this late stage of the debate. I do not think that any apology is necessary, for I believe that the discussion that has so far taken place on this most important and momentous question is but a short prelude to that wider and fuller discussion which must take place in the country, when, at last, hon. gentlemen opposite screw their courage to the sticking place, and dissolve the House and go to the country. I regret very much that my lack of familiarity with the language in which the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Behind) spoke last night will make it necessary for me to forego the pleasure of criticising his clever speech. I judge that it was a very clever speech from the enthusiasm with which it was received by his compatriots. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), was particularly enthusiastic in his applause, and, knowing that hon. gentleman's taste, I am satisfied that the speech must have been a very clever one to call forth such plaudits from him. As to the remarks of the hon. gentleman for Lisgar (Mr. Stewart), who spoke last, as he confined himself to a complaint of the freight congestion in his section of the country, and as that section of the country is close to the American boundary line, I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that .his best plan if he wishes that congestion relieved, is to support the scheme outlined by the leader of the opposition, rather than that of his own leader, as the government scheme will certainly not touch his section of the country.
Now, Sir, one of the arguments brought against the present scheme that we are discussing is the haste with which the measure has been brought down, that there was not time for due consideration, before this measure was submitted to the House and the country. But the reason given for this haste is that the country is to-day face to face with a crisis. The right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir AVilfrid Laurier), in introducing this Bill alleged that the great danger which menaces Canada to-day is the abrogation by the United States of the bonding privilege. But is there any such danger, Mr. Speaker ? Is this not a mere bogey : a figment of the disordered imagination of a man whose brain has become less able to reason sanely ? AVe have had the so-called


Frederick Debartzch Monk: privilege for many years, a privilege which lias been to an extent mutually advantageous to Canada and the United States. But, Sir, while we have reaped certain profits from it, is it not a fact that the United States have reaped infinitely greater advantages ? No man can adhere to the fact and say that the advantage is not greatly on the side of the United States. The Americans are a commercial people. In their foreign relations they are largely guided by a due consideration of what shall be best for themselves from a material point of view, and such being the case, there is no international complication in sight of so acute a nature as to render at all likely a recourse on their part to so harsh and unbusinesslike a measure as the abrogation of the bonding agreement between themselves and us. It has been urged that they might do this in order to inflict a loss upon us for some imaginary wrong which they might conceive we had inflicted upon them. The history of the relations between the two countries in the past if they should study It, and I greatly overrate the intelligence of American statesmen if they would not indulge in such research before taking so grave a step, would very shortly convince them of the utter futility of such a step as a means of destroying the commerce of this country. When the Dingley Bill was made law in the neighbouring republic, there were people who prophesied that a deadly blow had been struck at our trade, but the great test of time lias shown such prophesies and fears to have been unfounded. If the bonding privilege were abro- . gated, which country would be the greatest sufferer ? Not Canada. Mr. Speaker, but the United States. The seaport of Portland is practically maintained by the Canadian trade, which passes through it on its way to the markets of Europe. The Canadian export trade through Boston and New York also forms no inconsiderable part of the trade of these two great ocean ports; and the edict which would prevent Canadian goods intended for export abroad seeking an exit through these ports would destroy Portland, and seriously affect Boston and New York. It would be a political boomerang which would injure more the party setting It in motion than that against whom it was directed.
But, Sir, if our railways could no longer carry goods in bond for shipment through American ports would our produce of necessity remain unsold and decaying within our storehouses ? Have we now upon our own soil no railways for the carriage of freight froip the west to the east ? Have we not the Canadian Pacific Railway from Vancouver to Montreal, and tb" IotercoPnial to St. John and Halifax ? If the bonding privileges were taken away we are still in a position to do business at the old stand, and the foundations upon which our trade rests will have received no violent shock.

Indeed, as a matter of fact, we shall then be absolutely sure that the whole volume of Canadian trade will have its outlet through Canadian ports, instead of only a small part as at present. So, Sir, there are two very effective answers to the Premier's question with respect to the danger of the abrogation of the bonding privileges, one being that though the abrogation is, of course, possible, it is yet in view of the history of the past, of the circumstances of the present, and of the outlook for the future absolutely improbable, and the other that our present means of transportation upon our own soil by means of the Canadian Pacific, Canadian Northern, Canada Atlantic, Grand Trunk and Intercolonial Railways, are such that we could still carry our products at no greatly enhanced cost from the extreme west to our own eastern ports.
If the strength of a scheme should be judged by the strength of the arguments adduced to maintain it, and I submit this is a fair test to apply, and if this matter of the bonding privilege is a fair sample of the arguments in favour of this so-called transcontinental line, which terminates at one end in an inland city, then surely it is no abuse of language to say that a madder or more foolish national project was never devised by any government, however imbecile, in any country, however misgoverned. What could have been the object of the right lion, gentleman in bringing forward so absurd an argument ? The hon. gentleman, I understand, has made it a boast, or has at least on former occasions confessed, that he has a very imperfect knowledge of business, and I am sure, Sir, that after this he will find no one able to put so great a strain upon his conscience as out of mere politeness to contradict him upon the point. What, I say, could- 'have been his object in bringing forward so absurd an argument as that founded upon the wholly imaginary danger of the abrogation of the bonding privileges ? Well, Sir, I do not think the answer is far to seek. The right hon. gentleman knows full well, for he has on former occasions felt the force of it, the great strength of the national feeling of Canada, and he plays the unworthy part of endeavouring to stampede the people of this country to his absurd scheme by creating this abrogation bogey, and thus arousing the prejudices of the people and blinding them to the real nature of the Cox contract. Why, Sir, where is all the great friendship that he and his party have in days past professed for the great American nation ? Is this the only tangible result we are to have from that much heralded international conference, which we were told was going to smooth away forever any friction which had been created by the unwise policy of the Tory government toward our southern neighbours ?
We have been told, Sir, that this conference will shortly meet again. Will its '	321}
deliberations likely be assisted and a desirable end made more possible of attainment by reason of the Premier of Canada having solemnly declared in parliament that the nation with which he is endeavouring to treat on amicable terms, is subject to fits of frenzy and on occasion performs acts which if it were an individual would lead to confinement in a lunatic asylum ? And, Sir, in this connection behold the further marvel of that former staunch friend and admirer of American institutions, that hon. gentleman, who in his intense desire that friendship should be maintained by this country with the United States, advised retaliatory action on the part of the United States to force us into their arms, and who thereby did not earn the esteem of patriotic Canadians-behold, Sir, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) arising in his place and in the most pious and apparently heartfelt manner, solemnly saying ' Amen ' to all that his chief had said in depreciation of the American people. There is a French proverb which says under certain circumstances, 1 search for the woman.' Now, Sir, the venerable age and general reputation of the hon. member for North Norfolk would in his case render a search of that sort unnecessary, but neither would preclude us from looking for a motive for so sudden a volte-face. May it not he found, Sir, in the fact that the hon. gentleman realizes the administrative weakness and utter unfitness of some of the members of the cabinet from Ontario, and with characteristic modesty imagines that lie tS just the man for Galway, and so resolves, in a mad endeavour to gratify an ambition which has always been with him, but which he until lately saw no chance to gratify, to go back on all his former professions, forsake his 'American friends, and swallow, holus-bolus, a scheme which no longer ago than last May he most roundly denounced. Sir, if these hon. gentlemen, or if this government have information known to themselves alone that there is a real danger whether near or remote of the bonding agreement being abrogated by the United States, I submit it is their bounden duty to' give that information to the House and country, for, Sir, with what information is now before us, and under a fair and reasonable consideration of the circumstances, weighing the advantages reaped by the United States against the advantages enjoyed by Canada, no sensible man can honestly believe that there exists now the slightest probability of such abrogation. But, Sir, they do not give us such information, because they have no such information, and the spectre which has been raised is only a poor imitation ghost that would not frighten a school boy. Yet the Premier says if it were not for this question he would not bring this scheme before parliament, thus showing upon what a poor and baseless foundation this costly superstructure rests.

Another argument put forward to show the desirability of the railway scheme is that it will make possible the settlement of the northern part of Ontario and Quebec, and the central part of New Brunswick. It has been gravely asserted by bon. gentlemen whose ignorance of the subject is most profound that settlement in New Brunswick is confined to the coast line, and a narrow strip along the St. John river, and that the building of this railway to Moncton will open up a most valuable agricultural territory. One would think, Sir, to listen to these gentlemen that New Brunswick had only just been discovered and that the aboriginal Indian still roamed the wilds of that province, and the white man had not yet ventured out of sound of the sea waves. Sir, this gloomy picture of the condition of the settlement in New Brunswick is not borne out by the facts. It is true that we have some forest in that country, and, Sir, it is a valuable forest. It differs from the forests of Ontario inasmuch as it renews itself, if properly cut and managed, and is a most valuable asset of that province. It is true, Sir, that much of the land covered by the forest of which I speak, would make, if cleared, good farming land, but, Sir, while cleared farms with good buildings upon them can be bought for very little, if any more than the initial cost of the buildings, to say nothing of the improvements, and although such farms are situate close to school and church and neighbours, and all that goes to make life worth living, you will not find the young man of New Brunswick anxious to go into the green woods and do pioneer work in hewing out a farm from the forest, when to do so he has to separate himself from those social conditions which add pleasure and zest to life. And, Sir, in selecting the route through New Brunswick, the government have chosen one, which for the most part, lies through the most rugged, hilly and broken part of the whole province, a route that must be greatly lengthened, from the estimate given by the hon. gen-[DOT] tlemen supporting these resolutions by reason of the detours made necessary by the numerous hills, lakes and ravines which are found in that part of the country. A glance at the map will show that the route proposed follows what is practically the watershed dividing the streams flowing south-west from those flowing north-east and east, and the most casual observer will perceive what is the fact, that this is no route for a trunk road which is expected to be a competitor for the grain trade between the west and the east. That this is true is amply borne out by the reports of the engineer, Sir Sandford Fleming, who tried to get a central route through New Brunswick for the Intercolonial Railway which would satisfy the people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and who finally reported in favour of the route by the valley of the Mr. FOWLER.
St. John and the shore route along the coast. The influence of Hon. Peter Mitchell and the Nova Scotia members backed by the advice of the imperial authorities, prevailed, and the Intercolonial Railway was built by its present route. There is one thing which certainly commends itself to any man who has travelled on the Intercolonial Railway from Campbeilton to Moncton, and that is its easy grades. Sir, I believe that by reason of the superiority of the grades on the Intercolonial Railway between Montreal and St. John over the grades on the Canadian Pacific Railway between the same points, and the superior condition of the road-bed of the Intercolonial Railway as well, freight, notwithstanding the considerably longer distance, can be hauled as cheaply by the Intercolonial Railway as by the Canadian Pacific Railway. There are upon a portion of the Intercolonial Railway from Campbeilton to Moncton, thirty-mile stretches of road of a dead level, and freight trains on that portion of the road can make faster time than express trains will ever be able to make over the Grand Trunk Railway, if it is ever built over the proposed central route.
In other parts of the Intercolonial Railway where there are heavy grades, a comparatively small expenditure of money will reduce them, and it has been estimated by competent engineers that a wery considerable shortening of the line of the present Intercolonial Railway could be made by a cut-off from Riviere du Loup to Matapedla, effecting a saving of at least sixty-five miles at a cost, on account of the character of the country there, not exceeding $2,000,000, and the grades upon the whole of the Intercolonial Railway could be reduced to a proper standard for not more than a $1,000,000 more. So, Sir, $3,000,000 expended on the Intercolonial Railway would give you a road, within at the outside limit, twenty-three miles as short as the best estimate you have of the proposed route and infinitely better as to gradients than the road upon which this reckless government, for the benefit of a few financiers, who wish to recoup themselves for the losses incurred by wild stock speculation, at the expense of the public, propose to expend a sum which at the lowest possible estimate will exceed $15,000,000 and will, when built, undoubtedly parallel the road now owned and operated by the government and upon which $70,000,000 of the money of this country has been expended. .
Now Sir, the Grand Trunk Pacific people did not ask for this eastern division in their original scheme presented to parliament at the opening of this session, nor would they accept it now if they had to build and finance it even with the same proportionate government guarantee, as they have in the case of the prairie section. But of course, if the government pays for the.

building of the road and gives them the chance under the guise of a construction company to make a few millions in the building, they would be extremely foolisli not to accept so generous a gift. If the government were really in earnest about getting the shortest route to an ocean port, they would follow the valley route to St. John and the course they have adopted shows that it is a political and not a commercial road they propose to build.
As to the character of the route from Quebec to Winnipeg. I am not in a position to speak with such certainty as, unfortunately owing to the lack of exploration and survey in tliat quarter, there is no data in existence, or at least, to which I can flud access, upon which I can base a just opinion. And this fact, Sir, is one of the grounds upon which I object to this project. Before the country is committed to a scheme which involves the building of 1,400 miles of railway, there should be positive information given to this House, and the country to show that the route selected is a feasible one, and that the railway, when constructed, can be made by reason of gradients and curvatures suitable for a great trunk road. Now, Sir, up to a few days ago, we had nothing but politicians' guesses for information with respect to that country. At length, however, we were given a glimpse behind the veil and were permitted to see where the Premier got the information which convinced him that that northern region beyond the height of land was really a modern Canaan, a land flowing with milk and honey, and only awaiting the hand of the husbandman to blossom into a veritable agricultural paradise.
An lion. MEMBER. Hear, hear.


George William Fowler: What is the matter with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Cape Breton) V


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Air. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has been reading his speech from the commencement of it and the question which occurred to my mind was who had prepared it for him. 1 desire, as that hon. gentleman has called attention to me, Mr. Speaker, to call attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman is reading his speech.


George William Fowler: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that if I have erred in that direction I have only followed the example of at least ninety per cent of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on that side of the House. Now, it seems to me


Alexander Johnston: Air. Speaker, attention has been called to the fact that the hon. gentleman who is now addressing the House is reading his speech. I did not intend to call your attention to it or to raise the point of order, but the hon. gentleman having called attention to me, I desire to raise the point of order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I call the attention of the hon. gentleman (Air. Fowler) to the fact that it is against the rules of the House to read a speech.


Mr. TAYLOR.: He is not reading his speech.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have to take the word of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler). When the statement was made that he was reading his speech he said that some other hon. gentlemen had been reading their speeches. I am not aware whether some other hon. gentlemen have read their speeches or not, because if they have done so, my attention has not been icalled to the fact.


Air. BENNETT.: It is a pity that hon. gentlemen opposite did not all read their speeches.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: -Since my attention has been called to it I must rule that it is against the rules of the House for an hon. member to read his speech.


George William Fowler: I have no paper in my hand. I have notes before me, I do not wish to offend against the rules of the House nor do I know that I offend against the rules of the House when I refer to notes. It seems, Sir, that the hon. member for Renfrew (Air. Mackie) was the chosen vessel, that that hon. gentleman was the one who supplied the information which made the Premier determine upon his course. Weil, Sir, the member for Renfrew has told us upon what he grounded his opinion as to the fertility of that region. He told us that he had tramped over a hundred miles of the territory with a pack on his back, when the soil was covered with a coating of snow three feet deep. Well Sir, all I can say is that the hon. gentleman must have a keen agricultural instinct if he could so confidently pronounce upon the quality of soil and it's suitability for farming purposes under circumstances such as these. But Sir, lest I should do the hon. gentleman an injustice, I must say he went further and informed us that he had learned of some other five hundred miles of that region from those most trustworthy persons-the Indians. And, Sir, when this astounding statement was made in this House the other day, the hon. gentleman supporting the scheme applauded vociferously, and looked over at us upon this side as though to say-Now you see we did know all about the country, it was no leap in the dark-We had full and authentic information from a man who knew all about it for the Indians told him so. In the late unpleasantness in South Africa, our friends the Boers had a famous gun, situated upon Talana Hill which from its length they named ' Long Tom,' and of which they were very proud, and each time it was discharged against the British they rejoiced greatly, though the damage it wrought was not at any time of much, if any importance. So our friends

upon tlie other side, when they had let off their * Long Tom ' in the person of the hon. gentleman from Renfrew, were most jubilant in their rejoicing, though as in the case of the Boers, the result was only an explosion. Now Sir, that country may he all that is claimed for it by the hon. gentleman opposite or it may be exactly the reverse, but I say this, that so far as any authentic information about the matter is concerned, no man either in the House or country is in a position to know, and before a contract for the construction of the road out of the public funds Is made, fully complete and accurate information should have been obtained. If Sir, we are to judge of the hinterland by the character of the country north of Lake Superior, then several hundred miles of the route must lie in a very undesirable region indeed, though of course, it may be it has all the fertility claimed for it, but 1 submit that before we can believe it we must have a proper exploration and survey. No man can be more averse than myself to saying one word against the greatness of this conutry or against the fertility of any portion of this country nor do I believe that any hon. gentleman on this side of the House during the course of this debate has uttered one word of a depreciatory character of the country which is in remarkable contrast to the conduct of hon. gentlemen who now occupy positions on the other side of the House, and who, when the Canadian Pacific Railway scheme was proposed by their predecessors in office, from the highest to the lowest, derided the country, depreciated its resources and belittled its future. We have had nothing of that kind on this side of the House and I was astounded myself when the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) stood up in his place in the House last night and made the statement that, out of all the hon. gentlemen who at that time were in this House supporting the Liberal party, Mr. Blake was the only one who had spoken in a derogatory way of the character of the North-west Territories. He was perhaps the most notable example because ne was then at the head of the Liberal party, but there were many others who did the same thing at that time and we had the spectacle the other day of a man who was a relic of that time standing up and saying that every word uttered in condemnation and in criticism of the scheme was borne out by the facts. But there are others of the Liberal party in Canada who do not take the view that the Minister of Trade* and Commerce professes to take. The hon. Geo. W. Ross, Premier of Ontario, admitted in a public address, that the Liberal party of that day was entirely wrong, and he apologized to the country for the course that he personally had taken in that matter.
We object to this railway project of the government, as I say, because the country through which it will run has not been fully


George William Fowler: explored and surveyed. True, the country west of Winnipeg across the fertile plains of Manitoba and the Territories and over the passes of the Rockies to Port Simpson, is to some extent known to civilization. A great portion of this country is unequalled in fertility by any other part of this great American continent. But what does the government propose to do with respect to this part of the road which can be cheaply constructed' through a fertile territory ? They do not propose to build it themselves. Oh, no, that would be the part of wisdom, and it would not do to injure the symmetrical folly of this scheme by even one wise touch. And so, Sir, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway are to build this part of the road and they are to be assisted in the building of it by a generous government guarantee of bonds. But, what is the excuse put forward for the building of 1,400 miles of this government road through a district entirely unsettled and uninhabited ? It is, that this land which is entirely unknown as to its resources and capabilities for supporting population, should be opened up for settlement. Sir, is our population so crowded at the present day in the known parts of Canada, that it is necessary to go to this enormous expense in order to relieve the congestion ? Look at the map of the Northwest Territories and see the infinitely small portion of settled country, as compared with the unsettled part of that great region, and you have your answer. Is the government so blinded by their folly as to imagine that the people of Canada are going to settle amidst the forests, and to hew out of the green wood homes for themselves, when these immense western pariries only await the prod of the plough to burst into harvests of golden grain. The thing is absurd. No sensible man would settle in that country, even though it should be as fertile as gentlemen opposite pretend, so long as he can get a prairie farm on equal terms.
And then, Sir, if you do not require this road for colonization ; for what purpose is it required ? Its sponsors say that it is necessary in order to relieve the present congestion of the traffic in the west. It is practically admitted by men of experience that, if this government project is ever gone on with, it will take ten years to complete and equip. What, in the meantime, becomes of the freight congestion in the west, if it really exists ? Are the farmers to hold their grain, or that portion of it which they cannot market for lack of transportation ; are they to hold that grain until that road is built ? Or, Sir, is it the intention that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway shall build at once the prairie section, and by means of their American connections carry the produce of the west to American seaports through American channels ? If that be so, then the doctrine of ' Canada for the Canadians' to which our friends on the

other side of the House have so lately become converted, receives a very severe black-eye. The Minister of Trade and Commerce saw that difficulty, and he referred to it in the speech which he delivered to this House. He made a most important admission when he stated that the Grand Trunk Railway system in the United States could very easily and simply be connected with the grain-fields of the west. Here is what he said (' Hansard ' page 9943) :
And, there is another considei^tion which it may be as well for the House to hear in mind. The Grand Trunk Railway has numerous connections. It is already extended to Chicago ; and if we were to refuse to co-operate with it, if we were to refuse to accept the hand which Is stretched out to us, the Grand Trunk Railway, beyond all question, would find its way into Manitoba and the North-west, but not through Canadian territory.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has seen the danger, but has he taken any means to avert it ? He has diagnosed the disease, but lias he been physician enough to suggest a remedy which shall be effectual in preventing or checking that disease ? Not at all. If this is so vital a matter ; if we are face to face with the crisis which has been suggested, and if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway are about making connections which will tap that western country and carry that grain through American channels to American ports ; are we going to remedy that by constructing through the unsettled portions of Canada, a road that it will take ten years to build and equip ; and, must we wait ten years, and are all these connections to be made in the meantime. In what way is our west going to be benefited under such circumstances ? The government say they will prevent the diversion of our trade by allowing the Grand Trunk Railway to build into that country. How will that prevent it ? Why, that will only increase the danger ; that will only give them better opportunities, to ship through the United States, by the extension of their lines in the western country, and through their American connections, during the ten years you have to wait for Canadian connections with the east. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway must haul up the grain during these ten yeats ; they must find an outlet, and that outlet will undoubtedly be through their ports at Boston, New York or Portland. There is the whole thing in a nut-shell ; there is the whole story. According to the Prime Minister the crisis was in the danger of the abrogation of the bonding privileges, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce is too shrewd to put forward such contention as that, and he tells us that the danger lies in the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway may, by means of its American connections, divert the trade of the west through American channels. But the Minister, of Trade and Commerce has not provided a remedy. What possible safeguard
can be found in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway contract or charter against this danger which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has pointed out to us. There is no safeguard whatever. Why yes ; some gentleman upon the other side of the House with a microscopic mind may say :	Why
yes, there is a safeguard. Have we not secured that this contract shall be carried out ; have we not secured that this grain will he carried through Canadian channels to Canadian ports ; have we not as security a second mortgage on the equipment of the eastern section of the road ? 1 Well, if that is the only security you have, imagine that ten years have passed away, and what is that' second mortgage on the equipment worth ? Why it is absolutely worthless. But then these gentlemen opposite may tell us, that we have other security, that we have the security of the Grand Trunk Rail-wav. An excellent security indeed ! How do "we know that we have the security of the Grand Trunk Railway 1 The shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway had a meeting only the other day in London and not one word was said at that meeting about this project now before the Canadian House of Commons. There was no sanction given by the Grand Trunk Railway to anything that is alleged to have been done by certain people on its behalf in the signing of this contract. The president of the Grand Trunk Railway, Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, or whatever his hyphenated name may he ; he was at the meeting, and Mr. Hays, the manager or vice-president or whatever he is, was also at the meeting, and yet according to the reports of the newspapers, not one word was said about this contract or about this scheme at that meeting of the Grand Trunk Railway shareholders in Loudon. We have only the statement that was first made by Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson to his shareholders in London, that the credit of the Grand Trunk Railway whs not to be pledged, and as we have never since had from Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson as president of that company any statement to his shareholders revoking his former statement, therefore his original statement must stand.
The hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and the hon. member for St. John City (Hon. Mr. Blair) have been severely taken to task by the hon. gentlemen opposite, one for saying this was a mad scheme, the other for terming it an indefensible one; and yet, Sir, it seems to me that the more one studies it the more one is convinced that a madder or more indefensible scheme was never devised.
Now, Sir, having shown, from my point of view at least, that tlie government's proposition is not a suitable one to answer the present requirements of the country, and to satisfy the reasonable demands of the people as to the improvement of our transportation facilities, let us see whether a solu-

tion of the difficulty can be found in the alternative scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. Beginning at the east, he proposes to utilize our present national railway, the Intercolonial Railway, as far as the great port of Montreal, making whatever changes may be necessary to shorten and improve it so far as possible, thus retaining as a part of a great transcontinental railway a road upon which $70,000,000 of the money of tin's counfry has been already expended. As I have already shown, this route, with the changes and improvements mentioned, will be the best possible line on all-Canadian territory from Montreal to the Atlantic coast. Then he * proposes to utilize the Canada Atlantic from Montreal to Depot Harbour, in order to tap the great lakes and put the government line in touch with the water route for grain. Then, by a line at or near Depot Harbour to North Bay or Sudbury, a distance of about 100 miles, to tap the Canadian Pacific Railway. Then, to acquire that portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway from the point last mentioned to Port Arthur, to become a part of the government system. Then, to assist in double-tracking the Canadian Pacific Railway from Port Arthur to Winnipeg, where the various lines, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, converge. This proposition has, Sir, in my opinion, in addition to many minor ones, two great and signal advantages over the government scheme, inasmuch as it immediately raises the congestion complained of, and does so at an infinitely less cost.
Now, Sir, there exists and has been expressed on the floors of this House a great variety of opinion as to the cost of the government proposals. The Premier and the Finance Minister both gave ridiculous estimates of their proposition now before the House. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) gave it as his opinion, and he gave the reasons upon which he based that opinion, that the cost could not possibly be less than $125,000,000, even taking the most favourable view. I am satisfied that the hon. gentleman has, in his desire to be within the mark rather than beyond it, greatly under-estimated the cost. The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) puts the amount at $160,000,000. So we have varying statements and opinions, even up to $280,000,000, as given by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier). And, Sir, I might say in this connection that the last-named gentleman is probably nearer the mark than the others. As a practical railway man of many years experience, he should be in a position to speak with authority. These varying opinions as to the cost are the direct result of the action of the government in springing such a project upon the country without any information as to the character of the route.


George William Fowler: If I were to venture an opinion-and it would probably be as nearly correct as the guesses of some other hon. gentlemen on either side of the House-I would say that the total cost to the country, including the cost of betterments on the road for the fifty years, Which are to be borne by the country, will certainly exceed $200,000,000. And what are we getting for this huge expenditure? Are we relieving the freight congestion which it is said exists in the North-west? Not at all; begause it will take seven years, at least, and I believe longer, before the rodd can carry freight through to Winnipeg; and if the Grand Trunk Pacific gets the prairie section done in two years, then for five years or more our patriotic friends will have to endure the pain and anguish of seeing Canadian goods, intended for export abroad, come through American channels to American ports.
But, Sir, by the alternative scheme as outlined by the hon. leader of the opposition, this alleged freight congestion may be almost immediately relieved, and the crisis so strongly dwelt upon by the Premier, averted. Why, Mr. Speaker, if this crisis is to be kept up to concert pitch until it can be relieved by the government's proposition, it will be almost old enough to vote before the day of its relief shall dawn. The Intercolonial Railway from Halifax and St. John to Montreal; a new line from Montreal to Coteau-38 miles; the Canada Atlantic Railway to Depot Harbour; a new line of 100 miles to Sudbury; and thus by the building of 138 miles, you are in direct touch with your government system, with Winnipeg and the great west; for all admit that from Port Arthur, at least, to Sudbury there is no congestion. If necessary, doubletrack the Canadian Pacific Railway from Port Arthur to Winnipeg; and so, building 138 miles of new railway and double-tracking from Port Arthur to Winnipeg, your system is complete; and the government-owned railway can assist in moving the crops of 1904 from the harvest fields ot the great west to tide-water.
"in this scheme there are two very solid advantages that must not be overlooked ; the one of particular and special import to the east, and the other of like special advantage to the west. These are, first, that by a government-owned and operated system, you insure absolutely that every pound of Canadian freight developed along the line of this railway will be carried over Canadian soil to Canadian ports; second, that you have a government system which will insure to the people of the west that there will be no combination of interests on the part of rival railways to squeeze every last possible cent out of them by way of rates, in order to swell the dividends of rich stockholders, but that their products will be carried to the port of shipment at the lowest possible cost. There is no question of a clause in a contract here which may be

broken or evaded by a company, which may or may not be inclined to abide by its obligations; but the contract is between the people of Canada and the government of Canada, and there can be no inducement to break or evade it.
But. Mr. Speaker, transportation facilities embrace more than lake and rail routes from ocean to ocean; and while the government's proposition confines itself to the rail route, the scheme set forth by the leader of the opposition embraces the whole question of the St. Lawrence river and the ports of Canada. You cannot hope to materially cheapen the cost of freight carriage to Europe by the Canadian routes unless the River St. Lawrence and our ports are put in such first-class condition that we shall not see a constant repetition of the disasters which have this season befallen shipping in the St. Lawrence. A radical change is necessary if navigation in that great water-way is to be made as safe as it should be, if we are to avoid a re-occurrence of these disasters. Then, Sir, it will greatly cheapen the cost of transportation if the great shipping ports of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax are made absolutely free by the abolition of these vexatious harbour fees and tonnage dues.
All these things are provided for in the alternative scheme, which must appeal strongly to the good sense of the business people of this country, when contrasted with the wild-cat enterprise upon which the government seem anxious to embark. ' But the hon. gentlemen opposite will say we have bound the Grand Trunk Pacific by a binding agreement to provide harbour facilities and to operate tills road and to carry freight to Canadian ports and to buy all supplies in Canada. ^ With whom was the contract made? With a company which, at the time of the signing of the contract,' had no eorporate existence. And with a company, the old Grand Trunk Railway, which already owes this country, on a fair computation, based upon the earning power of money throughout the period during which the debt has been standing, $118,000,000. That is a splendid security for the carrying out of the contract. This company has owed us for thirty-six years a sum of money which, with the aggregate interest, amounts to $118,000,000, and not one cent of which has been paid during all these years, either on capital or interest.
Well, Mr. Speaker, our friends opposite have laid so much stress upon this contract that at the risk of wearying the House I will refer briefly to two or three of the clauses, in order to see whether they bear out the construction which our hon; friends opposite place upon it. They say that the great advantage of this road through the wilderness lies in the fact that it will be constructed up to a superior standard. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) compared it with the finest roads of the
United States, and pointed to the clause of the contract which provides that the western division shall be equal to the main line of the Grand Trunk Railway between Toronto and Montreal. And the eastern division, he said, is to be built even to a better standard, because it is to be built by the government whereas the western is to be built by the company. Let me begin by reading section 11, a portion of which would apparently carry out that intention, but incorporated into that section are a few words, which completely destroy its effectiveness :
The company shall lay out, construct and equip the said western division of the said railway to a standard not inferior to the main line of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Toronto.
Of course these hon. gentlemen supporting the government stop at that point, and then they exclaim : look at what we have done; we have hound these people to put up a road in that western country equal to the standard of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Toronto, and everybody knows what a magnificent road that is. But here follow those words, which destroy the whole effect of the preceding :
So far as may be practicable in the case of a newly constructed line of railway.
1 say, and any lawyer will say-I see the hon. member for Hants shake his head. That is what he is there for. Any position, no matter how absurd, ridiculous and opposed to the law, he will endorse and say it is the law and the prophets. But you do not need a lawyer to construe that clause. Any layman of intelligence can construe it just as well as can the future Chief Justice of Nova Scotia. So much for clause eleven, but there are many other clauses.
We are tokl that we are to have $5,000,000 of security. Just think of it, this company-within thirty days, mark you, of the time of this contract passing-is to put up $5,000,000 in cold cash as security that it will be carried out. Let us see whether such be really the case. Here are the two clauses, twelve and thirteen, which contain all the provisions regarding that security. Clause twelve reads :
The company shall within thirty days after the passing of the Act confirming this agreement and of the Act incorporating the company hereinafter referred to, deposit with the government flge million dollars in cash or approved government securities, or partly in cash and partly in such approved securities, at the company's option, as security for the construction of the western division and for the first equipment of the whole line of railway, as provided for in this agreement ; the government shall pay interest at the rate of three per centum per annum on any cash so deposited, and shall, from time to time as received, pay over to the company any interest received by it on the securities so deposited, unless and until the said deposit shall become forfeited to the government or returned to the company in a manner hereinafter provided.

Section thirteen, which must he read with section twelve, provides :
The government shall return the said deposit to the company on the completion of the construction of the western division, and the first equipment of the whole line of railway, according to the terms hereof, provided, however, that when it is shown to the satisfaction of the government that the application of the 'same will enable such construction and equipment to be completed, and that the same will be so applied, the said deposit shall be released by the government in such instalments as may from time to time be agreed upon, but, if the company shall make default in the performance of the obligations of the company for the construction of the said Western Division and for the first equipment of the whole line of railway, under the terms of this agreement, treating the same as entire, then the said sum of money shall be absolutely forfeited to the government for the use of His Majesty the King.
We have here the whole thing in a nutshell. This company is to put up five million dollars cash or security into the hands of the government, and the government must pay interest; but just as soon as the railway is completed in the western division and the first equipment of the whole line provided, this money is paid over to the company. What becomes then of the security ? You are simply left with the one security, and not the two, as lion, gentlemen opposite try to make out. They make out that we have the two securities, the five million dollars and the second guarantee on the equipment, but we have but the one. But this is only a sample of the unfair and untrue arguments advanced by lion, gentlemen opposite to bolster up this mad scheme.
Take section sixteen. I do not propose to take up all these sections because there will be ample time to do that in committee, and there is ample material for criticism in the sections I have passed over and for very much additional criticism in those I have slightly touched.
An lion. MEMBER. We will see the snow.


George William Fowler: Yes. Section sixteen provides :
In case, after the completion of the said Eastern Division, and the taking possesion thereof by the company under the lease thereof, hereinafter referred to, or at any time thereafter during the continuance of the said lease, the government shall deem it necessary to expend any sums of money for the improvement of the Eastern Division, the replacement of structures by others more modern or otherwise upon capital account for betterments, and not being ' working expenditure ' payable by the company, the government may expend such sums and the amount thereof shall he added to the capital of the construction upon it.
The lion. Minister of Justice said, with respect to section sevefiteen, which provides that the material may be brought in free of duty, that that section did not apply to the original cost of construction. I take


George William Fowler: issue here and nowr with the hon. Minister of Justice on that point. I say that his statement of the law7 is not correct; that it is absolutely wrong. I say that sections 15, 16 and 17 must be read together. Now section 17 says :
No addition shall be made to the cost of construction or to the capital of construction account in respect of customs duties in cases where there is direct importation of material or supplies by the government.
Let us see w7hat the cost of construction refers to. Section 15 provides :
The expression ' cost of construction,' in the case of the eastern division, shall mean and include all the cost of material, supplies, wages, services and transportation required for, or entering into, the construction of the said eastern division.
But in section 17, it will be observed, the expression ' capital of construction account ' is used. These are the two classes of cases under which there may be free importation into this country-cost of construction, and capital of construction account. It is quite plain that the former, cost of construction, means intitial cost of this railway ; the other, the capital of construction account is specially provided for under section 10 and means the cost of betterments. There you have it, and I venture to say that the meaning is clear. And I am surprised that a gentleman in the position of the Minister of Justice, who should stand at the head of the bar of this Dominion, would give a legal opinion such as he gave in this case, if he is correctly reported. We find that under section 17, all the material used in construction, and all the material used for betterments in the next fifty years may be admitted free of duty. And yet, we are giving bounties for the production of steel. And these men w'ho look on these bounties as means of getting this business on its feet, and who, it may be have been looking forward to the building of this railway to provide them with a home market by using the output of their mills, will find that they have not only to compete with foreign manufacturers under ordinary circumstances, but they have to compete with those foreign manufacturers relieved of the duties provided for in the statute-books of this country. Contrast this w7ith the action of the people of New South Wales under circumstances similar to ours in building this railway. In that state, the government is about to ask for tenders for the construction of from sixty to one hundred locomotives. Home and foreign manufacturers are to be invited to tender, but the locomotives must be built in New7 South Wales. Foreign manufacturers are invited to compete, but the locomotives must be built in the country in which they are used, the country which is going to pay for them. There will be no clause in the contract providing that they may be built elsewhere, when they can be had of equal quality suitable for the pur*

pose required. Yet this is the clause that, hon. geutlemeu say with so much unction, is a great thing tor the people of Canada. Section 20 provides that this eastern section, when it is completed, shall be leased to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company for fifty years. For seven years of that time, they pay no interest, and for three years after that they pay interest if they feel like it. And if they do not feel like it, they do not have to pay. No man of common sense will say anything to the contrary, when he reads the clause. Then, when ten years of the fifty years are up and they have had the use of the railway absolutely free, where are you ? They can throw up the railway, and the consequence will be that you have the railway on your hands.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Oh, oh.


George William Fowler: My hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) laughs.


William Alfred Galliher: No wonder.


George William Fowler: Are you going to hold the company ? What is your security ? Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us :	We have the
security that they shall run the railway. I have shown that this $5,000,000 which is deposited will have been absorbed on the equipment of the eastern division, and you will have no security except such hold as you have upon it. If the hon. gentleman has read the contract-and I do not believe he has


William Alfred Galliher: I could hardly read the contract and know as little about it as the hon. geutleman (Mr. Fowler) does.


George William Fowler: I say this much-that I know enough about the contract to be willing to stake whatever reputation I may have as a lawyer-my hon. friend laughs. Let me tell him that my reputation as a lawyer in my own province stands equally as high as the reputation of the hon. gentleman in his. And I venture to say, in regard to this contract, that the only security that the government have for the carrying out of the terms of the lease-and I defy any man on the other side from the Minister of Justice down to the smallest pettifogger among them, whether lie be small in point of stature or small in mental ability-


William Alfred Galliher: The hon. gentleman had better mention whom he refers to.


George William Fowler: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made my words broad enough and general enough to include the whole of them. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the only security there is in the contract for the carrying out of the terms of the lease is a second mortgage on the equipment of the eastern division and I say that advisedly. And, at the end of ten years' operation, when the interest has to be paid and after the equipment will have had ten years' wear, any railway man will know
what value that equipment will have. And that is their security. Why, take section 35, and read it iu connection with section 20. Section 35 provides :
For the purposes hereinafter in this paragraph respectively defined, the company may and shall create mortgages to trustees, as follows :-
(a)	A mortgage which shall be a first charge upon the railway, undertaking, equipment and property, tolls, rights and franchises of the company, including all equipment and property to be thereafter acquired by the company (but not including branch lines exceeding six miles in length or the revenues therefrom or the franchises in connection therewith, or such additional rolling stock as may, with the assent of the government, be designated and marked by the company as constituting the equipment thereof, and not including ships or any municipal or provincial grants of land, by way of bonus or subsidy, to the said company other than for railway purposes) to secure the payment of the said issue of first mortgage bonds guaranteed by the government.
There is your first mortgage, covering the whole road equipment of the company except their branch line tover six miles in length and the equipment of these branch lines. The whole equipment of the company is to be covered by the first mortgage. Then we have :
(b)	A mortgage which shall be a second charge upon the property covered by the mortgage provided for 'by paragraph 35 (a), save and except the rolling stock constituting the equipment of the Eastern Division, to secure the bonds to be guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of Canada, as aforesaid.
For what purpose is that second mort- , gage ? It is ' to secure the bonds to be guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada as aforesaid.' It will be remembered that the government have only to secure the bonds of 75 per cent of the whole amount up to $13,000 and $30,000 per mile. That is what the first mortgage Is to cover, the first mortgage is to cover all the equipment of the railway except the branch lines, exceeding six miles in length, and equipment of branch lines. That means that the first mortgage Is over the equipment of the eastern division, but by the second mortgage, which Is intended to secure the bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway itself, the equipment of the eastern division is excepted. Therefore we have only now as a security to fall back upon, a second mortgage upon the equipment of the eastern division. That statement is absolutely correct, there is the contract to speak for itself. Now, that is the sort of guarantee we have for the carrying out of this line, and therefore I say it will be a very simple matter if this railway is not a success after ten years trial, it will be a very simple matter for them to throw it up and say : Take your equipment, take your old scrap, take your old engines, and cars. And how easy it would be for them to take any old broken stock they had upon any other portions of the read and slip it over on the

eastern division. The result of this would be that we could not recover anything for the stock so thrown on our hands because you could not sell it until the bonds to pay the second mortgage had matured. There is the first mortgage and that mortgage stands until the bonds are due, which is in fifty years, and you could only sell it subject: to the first mortgage. Who, I ask, would buy that old scrap iron on the second mortgage subject to the first mortgage.
So much for our security. I have already referred to section 37 in speaking of section 17. The hon. member for Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle) moved a certain amendment to the Grand Trunk Pacific charter. that is the private charter, and lion, gentlemen opposite said they had covered that amendment by this section 37. I claim that they have not done so. There is no penalty whatever jirovided in the agreement, there is simply a statement here and no penalty whatever is provided if there should be a breach of the agreement between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government.
Now. take section 39. In yvliat respect, I ask the hon. gentleman who will reply to me to state, does section 39 differ from the general Act. It is put in here entirely for show purposes, on the circus poster principle, and on no other, because it can have no greater effect than is already given by the general Act with respect to the control of rates. I say, and I say it advisedly, that section 39 does not give any greater control of the government or to any commission that may be appointed under the Railway Commission Bill than is already given over the railways of Canada under the present Act.
I had the honour of moving an amendment to the private charter of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company when that charter was going through this House and the hon. the Minister of Finance during his speech on this question referred to that fact. He said I would no doubt support this Bill because it contained the same provision that I was seeking to have put in the Grand Trunk Pacific charter. Now, Sir. the two cases are entirely different and distinct. The one was a charter for the building of a railway by a private company in which there was no mention whatever of government aid or assistance in any way. The resources of this country were not to be drawn upon in order to assist in the building of the railway asked for by this charter. I took the ground, a ground which was opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, tha t if we had the right to grant the charter we had the right to withhold it, and, having both the right to give and withhold we had at the same time, concurrent with these rights the right to impose any reasonable and proper conditions upon the persons obtaining that charter, and I claimed that these conditions should not be so onerous as they would be if we were granting Mr. FOWLER.
aid to these people in carrying out the work contemplated by the legislation asked for. I said, therefore, that this being the case, it being a private company getting a private charter and going to own and operate this road, I would not go further than to require that all freight developed along that route, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, should be carried over Canadian soil to Canadian ports. That is what my resolution asked for, and it was opposed and voted down by hon. gentlemen opposite. Rut, Sir. I claim it is a different proposition when the whole resources of this country of ours are being called upon to carry out and finance this scheme, when we are not only giving aid by way of a guarantee of bonds for the western division of their road but actually are going to build at tremendous expense, at a cost of nearly two hundred millions of dollars of the public funds of this country and the public credit of this country, when we are doing that, Sir, I say it is not too much to provide that every bushel of this grain, every pound of this freight of whatever character it may be, and no matter what the individual wishes of the shipper may be, should be carried over Canadian soil to Canadian ports, that this road, built with public money, ibuilt by the people of this country, should be operated for the people of this country. Why, Sir, the only advantage we in the maritime provinces can hope to g'ain from this great expenditure of money, and we have to pay our share of it-and I want to say here and now, on behalf of the maritime provinces, which I to some extent represent, that no portion of Canada has more cheerfully made the sacrifices necessary in the attempt to make one great nation of this country than have the people of the maritime provinces. There are no people in Canada to-day to whom the question of free trade might naturally be of so great importance ns to the people of the maritime provinces, and there are no people in Canada who have stood more faithfully by the doctrine of protection. Why ? Because they sank all sectional differences, because they were not provincial, because they were broad-minded enough to believe that the national policy was the policy to make Canada a great country. They voted for and supported the na-t'onnl policy because they were Canadians first and provincialists afterwards.
I can see the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) grinning a ghastly sort of grin. I can quite understand how, to a litfie mind like his, this may seem nonsensical and absurd but he, thank God, is not a fair sample of the people from the maritime provinces.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: I am not the member for Cape Breton.


George William Fowler: They take proper views of national circumstances.


William Ross: I am not tlie member for Cape Breton.


George William Fowler: Let me tell tire lion, member for Victoria, N.S., that I did not refer to him. Let my venerable friend keep quiet, let him remember that at his age it is dangerous to get so excited as the hon. gentleman does and so great a loss would it be to the country if we should lose his valuable services in this House, that I earnestly ask the hon. gentleman to try and restrain himself.


William Ross: I only want to correct the hon. gentleman. I am not the hon. member for Cape Breton.


George William Fowler: My eyes, I think, are fairly direct in their vision. I certainly was not looking at the hon. member for Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross). 1 was trying to cast my gaze upon the sweet and benignant countenance of the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston).


Alexander Johnston: I think we have rather flustered the hon. gentleman.


George William Fowler: After this digression we will endeavour to return to our mutton. Section 48 of the contract provides that :
During the term of the said lease, and so long as the government remains liable for any portion of the bonds issued by the company, the government shall have the right to appoint one director of the company. Such director shall not receive any remuneration from the company, but shall be paid a salary by the government, not to exceed two thousand dollars per annum.
I presume the object of this clause is that there shall be some person on the board of directors who shall watch over the interests of the government, and who shall have access, as he would naturally have, being a director of the company, to all the books of the company and know exactly that everything is being carried on properly. I do not think that object will be exactly attained by the clause as it now stands. I pointed out to the hon. Minister of Justice when this matter was before the House in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific charter that there was a provision which should be made in this clause, and that was to the effect that this director should not have any interest, direct or indirect, as a shareholder in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I understood the hon. Minister of Justice to accede to that proposition. It has been changed in the Grand Trunk Pacific charter, but I see that in section 48 it still remains. A man might hold as much stock as he liked in this company and still be the government's director, and therefore he would be required to serve two masters. Now, not taking up the sections consecutively, I wish to refer to section 22. By section 22 it is provided what portion of the $20,000.000 that is required for the equipment of the railway shall be expended on the
western division and what portion on the eastern division. For a distance of 1,826 miles, the length of the eastern division, which is to he built by the government, there has been provided an equipment of $5,000,000, while the other division will be 1,600 miles in length at the outside, and upon that the equipment is put worth $15,000,000. Why this disparity ? Why this difference between the eastern division and the western division ? I suppose it must he on account of the fact that the government has anticipated what the right hon. Minister of. Tirade and 'Commerce (Rit. Hon. |6iir Richard Cartwright) pointed out, 'that the Grand Trunk Pacific, by means of their American connections, will carry a very large proportion of the trade through American channels and through American ports.
Now, I cannot close my remarks without paying a little attention to the speech macie by the lion. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock). It is a matter of some surprise to me that an lion, gentleman occupying the position he is supposed to occupy in the cabinet and in the country should give utterance to some of the words that lie gave utterance to in making his most remarkable speech. It lias already been spoken of by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Birkett). The lion. Postmaster General said that the library is full of information. that the woods are full of information. I do not want to be unparliamentary, and therefore I would not like to suggest that more than the woods were full when the hon. gentleman was making his remarkable speech, but I would say that the hon. gentleman at least was not full of trustworthy information, because the information which he did give us was certainly far from being trustworthy or reliable. The hon. Postmaster General alleged that the road constructed by the government from' Moncton to Winnipeg. 1,826 miles in length, would cost the country only $13,000,000, and in that respect he followed the lion. Minister of Finance and the right lion, leader of the government. Now. the lion. Postmaster General will admit that every dollar spent upon the construction of the road must he spent by the country, and that every dollar spent in the next fifty years for betterments will be spent by the country; yet the hon. gentleman says that it will only cost $13,000,000 to build 1,826 miles of road and to maintain it, as far as betterments are concerned, for fifty years-two generations. The hon. gentleman takes an abso

lutely and entirely different view when it eomes to considering the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition. He estimates the cost of the road to be constructed by the government at $13,000,000, but, in the same breath almost and certainly before he could have forgotten his first statement, unless his memory was very defective indeed upon that occasion, he says that a road 300 miles, which it is proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition to build, provided


Mr. SCOTT.: I read the speech of the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) who gave the estimated cost of that line north of Lake Superior.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman may have read that speech, but he did not apply it correctly. If he had read it Intelligently he would not have made the statement he made last night, and attempted to holster it up by an alleged argument of the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) because the member for Lanark argued nothing of the sort.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. gentleman for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is here and he is able to speak for himself. He placed the cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway line on the north shore of Lake Superior at $60,000 a mile and if you multiply that by the number of miles you will find that it comes to $38,000,000.


George William Fowler: The remark which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has made bears out my statement that he did not understand what the hon. member for Lanark said. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) did say that the railway north of Lake Superior cost $50,000 or $60,000 a mile, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott), following the lead of the Postmaster General says, that if it did cost $50,000 or $60,000 a mile, then if you expropriated it you would have to pay $50,000 or $60,000 and that is where the Postmaster General showed his absolute Ignorance of the fundamental principles of law.


Thomas Walter Scott: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) suggest, that if under the proposition of his leader, they expropriated that line from the Canadian Pacific Railway, they would pay less than its value for it.


George William Fowler: Now, Mr. Speaker, don't you see that poor-I beg pardon. My hon. friend from W'est Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) is not able to distinguish between cost and value. That is the very point npon( which the Postmaster General shipwrecked. In a matter of expropriation it is a question of value and not a question of cost. If that road cost $10,000 a mile, and if it were worth $50,000 a mile do you think that a jury sitting as arbitrators would give the company merely what it cost. No, they would give the value of the road. And so the converse of that is true. If that road cost $60,000 a mile, and if it were only worth $10,000 a mile, the arbitrators wouM give its actual value and not its cost.


Thomas Walter Scott: May I be permitted


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George William Fowler: Let him speak.


Thomas Walter Scott: Would my bon. friend permit me to point out to him the logical conclusion of bis argument ? The bon. member for Lanark said that that road cost the people of this country a certain amount of money, and is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) going to argue that the Conservative government of that day, threw away that amount of money. Is he going to argue that after that road has been used for twenty years, it is worth less money today than the people of Canada originally put into it ?


George William Fowler: I would say to the hon. gentleman' (Mr. Scott) that he is only showing his absolute ignorance of' the subject and getting deeper and deeper into the mire the more he speaks on this question. When he reads what he has said and when he has sobered down to consider it, he will be so ashamed of it, that he will try to get it out of ' Hansard.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George William Fowler: I say that the mistake which the Postmaster General made was in confusing cost with value. I say that the basis upon which a verdict would be rendered by any arbitrators in expropriation proceedings would be the value of that section of the road, and not its initial cost however great that might be. A man might have a piece of land which he purchased for ten dollars, and circumstances might have so changed that that land would be worth $10,000 ; but will any hon. gentleman say that the question of cost could be at all considered, and that we should deprive him of that land by giving him ten dollars ? No ; you would pay him the value of the piece of land whatever it might be. Take the converse ; suppose he paid $10,000 for that land and circumstances have intervened which made it practically worthless, the valuators sworn to do their duty would give him the exact value and not the $10,000 which he paid for it.


Thomas Walter Scott: Then on that basis, the government should be given a bonus for taking over the north shore section of the Canadian Pacific Railway, because it is unprofitable to the company.


George William Fowler: My hon. friend is destroying his own argument. I contend, Sir, that if the government should acquire that section of the Canadian Pacific Railway north of Lake Superior, and if the railway would not sell for what experts consider a reasonable sum, then expropriation proceedings should be taken to get at the actual present value of that railroad, and if it is worthless as my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) says, then the country will have to pay nothing for it.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am very much afraid that you would have to pay the cost of that road.


George William Fowler: Then it cannot be worthless, or else the hon. gentleman is casting a doubt on the honesty of the men; who would act as arbitrators. I confess that my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) has some warrant for such a doubt when he considers the character of the men who have been placed on commissions by this government and the findings they have made. But, Sir, when this scheme of the leader of the opposition comes to be acted upon, and when it has received the support of the country, then let me tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) for his satisfaction and relief, that the appointment of such a commission would be in the hands of a Conservative government, and the experience of the past is that men appointed on commissions by a Conservative government can only make a righteous and just finding.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


George William Fowler: Mr. Speaker, when the House took recess I was making some references to the speech delivered by the hon. Postmaster General in connection with this debate. I was referring to his statement with respect to the cost of the scheme proposed by the government. Now, in order to be perfectly fair to the hon. gentleman, I propose to read a portion of his speech, to be foiled on page 10065 of ' Hansard. ' Speaking of this scheme, he says :
Ours is a very modest one. At one time we had it attacked as being a scheme of great magnitude ; but when compared with the proposition of the leader of the opposition, its dimensions are considerably lessened. It only contemplates the building of a railway from Mope-ton via Quebec to the coast, a part of which is to be operated by a railway company, and which will only cost the people of Canada $13,000,000.
In another place, on page 10070, he says :
The acturial estimate puts it between $11,000,000 and $12,000,000, but I have given a margin. Thirteen million dollars is all that our little modest scheme involves in the way of money going out that does not come back.
It is very singular how differently this matter looks when the hon. gentleman is paying his attention to the scheme propounded by the leader of the opposition. Speaking of that, he said :
In all, to build 7.011 miles of road

Although as a matter of fact the hon. gentleman knew full well, when he made that statement, that the only new portion of road proposed to be built under the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition was 138 or 140 miles in length. Then he estimates what these 7,041 miles of road will actually cost to build, and he puts that as the cost, or a portion of the cost, of the scheme propounded by the hon. leader of the opposition. But when he comes to talk of the 1,826 miles of road which are to be built through this trackless wilderness, it

will cost this country only $13,000,000. I have here a small clipping taken from one of the independent papers of this country with respect to this matter. It is entitled ' Curious,' and reads as follows :
Some advocates in parliament of the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme are making out that the cost of it to Canada will be about $13,000,000 or so, while the cost of Mr. Borden's scheme or of any other scheme looking to government ownership of a transcontinental railway would be anywhere from $100,000,000 to $200,000,000.
Curious, isn't it ?
The government is going to build a railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, through very difficult country, and the scheme, according to quite a number of eminent Liberal financiers



have another railway man of experience in this House in the person of the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). who for many years was Minister of Railways, and Canals, and that bon. gentleman is also opposed to this scheme and sets his voice and face against it. Then we have the evidence of Sir William Van Horne, the [DOT] leading figure in railway matters in this country. I might go further and say that, even on this continent of America, there is not a man whose opinion in connection with railway matters is entitled to so much weight and respect as is the opinion of Sir William Van Horne. In fact, in so high esteem did the government hold him with respect to matters of this kind, that they selected him to be the chairman of their transportation commission-that emu-mission which should have been appointed to consider this question, and upon whose finding any railway scheme projiosed by this government should have been based. Well, Mr. Speaker, Sir Wiliam Van Home has pronounced himself most strongly against this scheme. Further, we have this fact. We have the fact stated by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals in this House-a statement which has not been denied and which would have been if it could-that rot one of the officials of the Railway Department: was ever consulted regarding this proposition. Would you not think, Sir, that the first tiling the government would have done, when the bare skeleton of the scheme was outlined in their minds, would have been to call to their assistance these experts in their employ and get their advice? But the government never consulted these men. In fact, as the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has told us, every one of the officials of the government railway has pronounced against this scheme We have still further the fact that the independent press, almost without exception -that portion, at least, which has any influence or weight in the country

is absolutely opposed to this measure. Why, there is one newspaper published in Toronto-a newspaper whose editor would swallow almost anything set forth by the First Minister, so great was his admiration for the right lion, gentleman-and this newspaper, though it was ready to swallow almost any scheme, no matter how startling, to which the Premier might give his voice, is taking an altogether different ground to-day. What advice does it give ? It strongly recoifi-mends the right hon. gentleman to backdown on his own plan and adopt that of his opponent, the leader of the opposition. And if the right hon. gentleman wishes to have his name handed down to posterity as a friend of Canada, he will take the advice of his friend the editor of the ' News.'


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: The commerce of this country, Mr. Speaker, is growing at such a mar-


George William Fowler: vellous rate that additional transportation facilities are urgently demanded. This is a fact which is patent to all. We cannot shut our eyes to it even if we desired to do so, which certainly we do not, because it is a source of pleasure and pride to Canadians, irrespective of party, to know that our common country is so progressive. I am happy to say that we have not reached the crest of the wave, nor does there seem to be any indication at present that we are approaching it. I know of my own knowledge-there are other commercial gentlemen present who are more intimately connected with business than I myself now am-but I know of my own knowledge that some manufacturing institutions at least have been forced to call in their travellers, to give them two or three weeks holidays. It is simply impossible for these institutious to keep up with their orders; the mail orders, with the orders which they have already booked are more than they can hope to fill within any reasonable limit of time. This tells of great prosperity among our manufacturers at home, and at the same time the foreign trade and commerce of the country is progressing in a remarkable degree. To prove this, I need only say to the hon. gentlemen opposite that in the two months that have elapsed of the present financial year, July and August, the customs receipts have been $1,200,000 more than they were for the two corresponding months of last year.
I say then that, viewing the wonderful expansion of our trade and commerce, and believing that it is likely to continue, we must feel that the duty is forced upon parliament, is forced upon the government, and, it seems to me, must be forced upon any man claiming to have any of the qualities of statesmanship, of seeing that at an early date additional transportation facilities are provided beyond those we already have. With that end in view, and recognizing this urgent need, the government have entered into a contract, and the Bill giving effect to that contract is now before this House for its consideration. Its terms are well known, they have been discussed for many days, but I may briefly state them thus :
The plan is to build a grand national transcontinental railroad from ocean to ocean, wholly on Canadian soil. The eastern portion of that road from the city of Moncton to the city of Winnipeg is to be built at the country's expense. When built it is to be leased to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company with a reservation to the government of equal rights to use it. Thus, if in the future circumstances should demand it, and the government should see fit-although it is not contemplated at present-Intercolonial trains can take their passengers on board at Halifax, St. John or any other port, can run through over that Canadian road which we will own for 1,800

miles, and land them at the city of Winnipeg. Then we give aid to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to construct a line from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean, and we make a stipulation in giving that aid securing to the Intercolonial Railway the right, should it ever he thought desirable to exercise it, to run over that road on fair and reasonable terms. If government ownership of railways is desirable we will have under this agreement 1,800 miles of additional Intercolonial railroad which the government of Canada may use as to them seems best. In addition to that you could run your Intercolonial trains if you saw fit to the waters of the Pacific ocean and back again. That in short is the scheme proposed by the government, the scheme that is now before this House for ratification. Objection lias been taken to it, and it has been spoken of as a hybrid system, the word ' hybrid ' being used, I suppose as a term of reproach, because the government will own part of it and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will own the other part of it. I do not see that there can now be much objection on that ground, and we have not, of late, heard so much about this hybrid system, from our friends opposite, for we have a proposition from the hon. gentlemen opposite, a policy that will have to be carried out if they come into power, and if they are careful to fulfil their pledges which they say it is the bounden duty of public men to do, and which, no doubt, they will do. They have not seen fit to embody this policy in a resolution, but we do not intend to let them escape under that plea. We must have an understanding of this alternative policy, because there are on both sides of this House members of independent views, and we want to find the proposition that is in the best interests of the country.
Now, what is the policy of the opposition ? It is to first build a section, then buy a section, then build a section, then buy a section, then assist two independent companies to improve their lines and secure running rights over- them, then 'assist another company to build a line from Winnipeg to Edmonton, then build from Edmonton to the Pacific coast, then buy up the fleet of the Canada Atlantic Transit Company, then (after you have taken a rest) build a better road from Levis to Moncton, then build a colonization road from Quebec to Winnipeg, then within a certain number of years, if a practicable route be found, extend that road to the Pacific coast, then build elevators and storehouses to save the western farmers the expense of building barns, with several other propositions by which we can spend our money. This proposition is from the party that says 'hybrid ' to our scheme !
The member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) saw fit, and it was quite within his right, to move an amendment which is now in your hands, Mr. Speaker. That amendment was 322J
to substitute an academic declaration instead of the contract and the Bill that has been submitted to parliament. I say he has a perfect right to do this, but it does seem to me that if he wanted to have an academic discussion on the question of government ownership of railways it would have been better had he chosen an occasion othen than this. I cannot see why he should ' choose an occasion when, if his motion were to prevail, it would effectually wipe out this proposition of the government, for his amendment is that all the words after the word ' that ' in the resolution be struck out, and Ihis academic resolution substituted.. This may be in accordance with the wishes of the people of the city he represents-he is the best judge of that, and I shall not assume to impugn his judgment- but it does seem to me a strange thing that the city of Winnipeg, through its representative, should try to defeat the entrance of the Grand Trunk Railway system into that city. I cannot understand it.	,
Another hon. gentleman representing a Manitoba constituency moves the same resolution slightly amended, and, therefore, we have the province of Manitoba, through two of its delegates, declaring that it does not want immediate steps to be taken to introduce the Grand Trunk Railway system into the province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and that the time of this parliament will be better occupied in solemnly debating an academic question than in attending to the crying wants of this country.
1 want to compare a small part of the opposition scheme with that of the government. Let me take two items, just two bites, as it were, out of their policy. They propose to buy the Canada Atlantic Railway, 342 miles, which has been estimated at $17,000,000. They propose to bite out a piece not exactly from the rfiiddle, but near the middle, of the great transcontinental system of the Canadian Pacific Railway, a piece 629 miles in length. I am not going to give the House many figures; nor am 1 going to set u.p my own judgment as a standard in the matter, though I have my views. I take that 629 miles at the value placed upon it by the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) who had a long experience as Minister of Railways and Canals-I do not know whether ne occupied the position of minister at the time the road was being constructed or not- but I understand that he has as good a knowledge of the cost and value of that road as any man in the House. He estimated it at $60,000 a mile. This would be $37,740,000. Now. these two sections, if the government buy them, will cost the country $54,740,000. This is nearly the same amount as is estimated by the Finance Minister to be the cost of the whole road from Winnipeg to Moncton. I adopt the figures of the Finance Minister, and I think this

House lias found bis figures in tbe past reliable. I admit that no man can tell absolutely, to a few thousand dollars, or a few hundred thousand dollars, or, it may be. even a million or two, what the cost of this road from Winnipeg to Moncton will be. But the Finance Minister has consulted with men of experience ; he has brought his own judgment to bear upon it, and he is a man of cautious temperament. And the amount he estimates as the cost of the eastern section which the government is to build is very little, if anything, more than the two sections that the opposition propose to buy. But, for the amount spent, according to the Finance Minister's estimate, on the eastern section of this new transcontinental line, you get 1,800 miles, the whole line from Moncton to Winnipeg over which we can run our Intercolonial Railway trains, if we choose. On the other hand, the opposition have only reached Fort William, and they still have two gaps of 37 miles and 120 miles which they will have to build, before they can connect their new road with the Intercolonial. And let me ask these lion, gentlemen opposite if they are sure that they can buy the 629 miles of the Canadian Pacific Railway for the amount I have estimated. There is a gentleman in this House of whom high expectations were farmed when he first entered this chamber as a representative of the people. And in any remarks I make concerning that hon. gentleman or any other hon. member, I desire to speak with all respect. The gentleman to whom 1 refer is a member of an able family, a noted family. He must have ability himself, judging from the position he holds in the financial world. Personally, I hailed his advent to parliament with pleasure, if he will permit me to say so, because I think it desirable that the ablest men of our country should be within our legislative halls. He reached this House, and one of his earliest utterances, about five years ago was bitterly disappointing to me. Led by the strong party bias that must be in him-for I desire to be charitable-he made a statement in this House to the effect that the lands proposed to be given to Mackenzie and Mann in connection with the construction of the Yukon railway would sell then for about $75,000,000. And I venture to say that, now, after five years have elapsed he would not give the thousandth part of that amount for the whole of the land it was proposed to give to Messrs. Mackenzie & Maun, even though lie got it without the obligation of providing any public improvement whatever. One would have thought that this would be a lesson to the hon. gentleman, and that when he again criticised proposals of the government involving large expenditure he would bring financial ability to bear, as well as sound reason, and would not allow himself to be carried away by mere partisanship. If he was not thus carried away then, if,


Hod. Mr. PATERSON.: 
Mr.  E. B.@: Osier, in a two-liour spech to-day made one of the most notable contributions to the Grand Trunk Pacific debate that have come from either side of the House. He made no effort at oratoric effect, but dealt with the facts as he found them with a cold logic that doubled the force of his arguments. He first dealt with the absurd claims of the government a.s to the cost of the road to the people, and showed what vast sums must be taken from the public strong box if the scheme ever goes through in its present shape.
Wliat were the figures he gave us V He simply stated that a railway, twenty-five or twenty-six years after its construction, would have cost three and a half times the original cost of construction, owing to the betterments put upon it. He argued, therefore, that this eastern division of the transcontinental railway, at the end of twenty-six years would have cost no less than $280,000,000; and he estimated, and declared that it was a modest estimate, that twenty-four years later, at the end of the lease of the Grand Trunk Pacific the cost would be $560,000,000. This he said, he based on the cost of the Intercolonial. Let me say in passing that, if the cost is to he added to after construction, and after it is handed over under lease, to the Grand Trunk Pacific that company will be obliged to pay us the interest on all the money put into the road, Including the betterments; and, at the end of the term when the bonds will fall due, you will have your road, which will be full value for every dollar you put into it. Now, if the proposal or hon: gentlemen opposite to buy this 629 miles of road from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is ever to be carried out we do not want to have it on record that the financial authority of hon. gentlemen opposite valued that road on this basis, and that his figures went uncontradicted. It is eighteen years since that road was built and, according to the hon. gentleman's figuring, it has cost the company 3} times $60,000 a mile. If the Conservative government should come into power and the hon. gentleman be made Finance Minister, we do not want the Can-

adian Pacific Railway Company to be in a position to come to the government and say, ' according to your own estimate, as given in the House of parliament, this road cost $37,000,000 when it was built, and. in the eighteen years after that, it cost so much as to bring the total up to about $99,000,000, and your estimates were not found fault with or contradicted, so if you are going to buy this road we want you to pay ns that amount.'
I want to put it on record that the hon. gentleman has been all wrong in his calculation, so that if possible I may avert the danger that ini future may arise under the circumstances pointed out. The hon. gentleman, in the first place is wrong in his figures. He figured out the*cost of the Intercolonial Railway stating that it was $21,500,000 in 1876 and that now it was $71,000,000. The total capital expenditure up to and inclusive of 1876 on the Intercolonial Railway was not $21,500,000 as he stated, but $34,660,770. I take these figures from the report of the Department of Railways and Canals published on page 32 part II. of the annual report of the department for the fiscal year 1901-2. The latter sum of $34,660,770 includes $10,766,725 expended prior to confederation, and that sum of $10.766,725 is included in the amount making up the total expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway to date to $71,000,000 quoted by the hon. gentleman. Instead of there being an increase in the capital expenditure from 1876 to 1903 of $50,000,000, or, as the hon. gentleman put it, of three and a half times the original cost, the increase was only $37,000,000, or a little over double the original cost. I want the House to notice that. If the hon. gentleman meant anything by his remarks, he intended to convey the idea-and he put it most clearly-that the original cost of construction of a given stretch or line of railway had in twenty-five or twenty-six years been increased under ordinary conditions, not under the conditions of government supervision, three and a half times, and that the cost at the end of twenty-six years would be doubled in the succeeding period of the same duration. That is what he gave the House distinctly to understand because his figures and calculations are based on that. It was on this basis of calculation that he arrived at the conclusion that the Grand Trunk Pacific would at the end of fifty years cost the country $560,000,000. Now, I have shown the House that the figures upon which he based his calculations were very far astray indeed, and I propose to give a further proof that his argument is not only fallacious and misleading, but that it is mischievous, and not at all calculated to reflect credit upon the hon. gentleman's reputation as a financial or railway authority. The refutation is easy. The hon. gentleman tried to make us believe that the accretions to the original cost applied to
the original stretch of railway. The fact is that a large portion of the increased capital expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway since 1876 has been incurred by the purchase of existing lines and in the construction of new ones. I do not want to weary the House, but I will give the details of the reads purchased and of 'the roads constructed since 1876 as furnished to me by the Department of Railways and Canals on request. First, 118 miles from Rivi6re du Loup to Hadlow was purchased from the Grand Trunk Railway in 1879 ; ' 81 miles, comprising the eastern extension from New Glasgow to Port Mulgrave, was purchased from the Nova Scotia government ; 133 miles purchased from the Drummond County Railway from Chaudiere Junction to Ste. Rosalie ;. 96 miles were constructed from Point Tupper to Sydney and North Sydney ;i 69 miles were constructed from Oxford Junction to Pictou ; 12 miles were constructed from Brown's Point to Stellarton ;	13 miles were constructed from the present line to Dartmouth ;	14 miles were constructed from
Indiantown to Derby Junction : 7 miles were constructed from Dalhousie Junction to Dalhousie * 3 miles were constructed to the Rimouski wharf ; 4 miles were constructed to the Riviere du Loup wharf : 6 miles to the River Ouelle, and 17 miles forming the Levis and St. Charles branch ;
5 miles from I'ugwash Junction to Pug-wash, the whole making a total of 578 miles purchased or originally constructed, and added to the mileage of the Intercolonial Railway since 1876, and the expenditure for which is included in the increased expenditure referred to by the hon. gentleman. The total mileage of the Intercolonial Railway main line and its branches to-day is 1,328 miles, so that, as a matter of fact, 43 per cent of the present mileage was bought 'or constructed between 1876 and 1903. Yet, with these facts we have that calculation placed on record and it stands here, so that if hon. gentlemen ever approach the Canadian Pacific Railway to buy their railway, or the Canada Atlantic Railway, the owners of these railways will say :	Your financial
authority in the House estimated that a road originally constructed would in twenty-five or twenty-six years be worth three and a half times the amount that it cost. I have put these facts upon-record so that if the occasion ever presents itself in future some one may be able to show how fallacious the argument of the hon. gentleman is. If hon. gentlemen were to apply such an estimate to the value of the roads they propose to buy, they would have to pay more than double any possible cost that we should have to pay for 1,800 miles of railway from Moncton to Winnipeg.
Now, there is another point I just want to allude to here, because I have heard that the hon. gentleman's criticism of the

proposal before the House caused a tremor In the ranks of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. The executive council of that body were in session and they sent a despatch to the right hon. Prime Minister, in which they emphatically protested against the free introduction of materials required for the construction of this road. I want to speak just in the way I feel in reference to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I did not belong to that body myself, although 1 was engaged in manufacturing for many years before I retired from mercantile life.	I know many of the
members of the association personally, they are excellent men, and I hail the existence of a commercial body like that when they discuss public matters, when they take an interest in the country, when they are bound together, when the interests of the country and of the trade and commerce of the country) form the tie that unites them, and when they do not allow partisan feelings to influence them but profess to be absolutely non-political. What were the facts ? What caused this telegram to be sent to the right hon. Prime Minister ? We have it because it was given to the press :
Executive Council, Canadian Manufacturers Association, assembled, enters unanimous and emphatic protest against permission being granted for free importation of foreign materials to be used in building railways in Canada. Will support this principle with delegation if necessary.
That is one of those cold facts that the hon. member for West Toronto gave to the House the other night. What I want to say in all kindness to my friends of the Manufacturers' Association is that I am glad to see them take an interest in our proceedings in this House, in the public questions that are being debated and the public measures that are being introduced for the benefit of the country. But, I would like to point out to them just this that they might have remembered the fact that hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) had distinctly stated in this House that these materials would not be introduced free into this country, and they might have found that it was not necessary to go to the expense of sending such a telegram to the right hon. Prime Minister in order to warn us against the danger when we had taken into consideration ail such matters before the subject ever came up in the House at all. But the further word that I would like to say to my friends of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association Is, that while I rejoice to see that they are thus active in looking after what they conceive to be in the interest of this country, I would ask them if they do not think, now that, I bring it to their attention that having overlooked the opposition's policy, they should call another executive meeting together and let us have nother emphatic Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
protest against what ? These gentlemen opposite when they protest against the free introduction of material into this country, make their protest on the ground that they want to have our native industries maintained, developed, and enlarged. But what would be the result of the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition ? What would be the result, if you buy roads already made ? Would it not be that not one ai*tisan, not one labourer, not one mechanic would be employed and that not one manufacturer would have an increased market for his output ? That is where an emphatic protest ought to come in from the manufacturers of Canada. The proposition of hon. gentlemen opposite is to buy roads already constructed, that were built largely out of bonuses the people gave them ; their proposition is to buy these roads back again.
My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and late colleague, for whom I have a lingering affection, addressed a public meeting the other day and he is reported as having said, that he blamed the government for their indecent haste in' this proposition. Unfortunately, I was ill, and had not the pleasure of hearing the hon. gentleman when he spoke in the House, but I read the next day, I think in the ' Journal,' that he made a. very good speech on the waterways, but had been non-committal on the raiiway project. But, if he is reported correctly in the ' Mail '-and I give him the benefit of the doubt, because the ' Mail ' did not always tell the truth about him- if he is reported correctly in the ' Mail,' as stating that we are proceeding with indecent haste, then I have a few facts to call to his attention. He has professed to be- and I shall give him credit for sincerity-he has professed to be the friend of the manufacturers ; he has professed to be in favour of the employment of artisans and the encouragement of the industries of Canada. Let me point out to him that this government scheme means the employment of thousands and tens of thousands of men, that it means armies of operatives and mechanics in the manufacturing industries of this country, not one of whom would be employed under the railway policy of the leader of the opposition ; and having pointed this out to him, let me ask him, where is the indecent haste in our propounding a scheme that I make bold to say will do more for the artisans and the mechanics and the manufacturing industries of Canada, than any possible changes in the tariff could do for them ? If a man who is In favour of Canadian industries and employment for Canadian mechanics votes against this proposition of the government, and if he then goes outside and talks about his love for the working men and the manufacturers, his utterances are the merest vapourings. Indecent haste forsooth, when the country is crying aloud for increased

transportation facilities, and when we are engaged in a work that cannot be completed before five years from now. Who will say what the condition of this country will be, and what the magnitude of its trade and commerce five years hence ? Indecent haste forsooth, in bringing a project before parliament and keeping parliament here to satisfactorily deal with it, because there is necessity for this work going on and going on immediately. It would be more like indecent haste if this government had undertaken at this session of -parliament a general revision of the tariff, which I admit must be undertaken from time to time. It would be more like indecent haste if we attempted to do that at this session, when we are watching the progress of events in the old country from which results may transpire that will require the remodelling of our tariff in order to meet conditions that if we can bring them about will redound to the benefit of the agriculturist, and of every man that has a stake in the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite told us that we should postpone this scheme in order to attend to the tariff. Does any one pretend to tell me that this railway project of the government will not mean the greatest boom to our manufacturing industries generally ? The hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Osier) mentioned a list of articles that he says will be required in the construction of this road. He read them coupled with the statement that they would come in free of duty. He was told by the Minister of Finance, that they will not come in free of duty, but, nevertheless he gave us a list of these articles. I hope my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) will listen, so that he will see the wide spread benefit that this railway will confer on the artisans and manufacturers of Canada. Here are the articles mentioned by the hon. member (Mr. Osier) :
Tents, camp equipment, provisions, flour, pork,

You see where the farmer is benefited here :
-tools, scrapers, ploughs, steam ploughs for unloading, picks, shovels, spades, sledges, axes, saws, hammers, nails, spikes, crow bars, rails, semaphores, signal lamps, electric supplies, telephone supplies, wheel-barrows, carts, wagons, harness, all kinds of rubber goods, bedding, clothing, in fact everything used in the construction of a railway or in keeping up its supplies during fifty years.
How far-reaching will not be the supply of these articles by the manufacturers of Canada. How much will their production not benefit the artisans of Canada ? And what are we to think of hon. gentlemen opposite who instead of voting for a scheme that will secure this development of the home trade, purpose to support that hybrid-within a hybrid-enfolded-in-a-hybrid scheme, submitted to the House by their leader. I need not say further upon that point.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: But, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) did say, that if this contract passed there would not be a steel rail rolled in Canada for 50 years. That was a beautiful idea ; was it not ? Well, if we buy up roads that are already railed, I suppose we won't roll any rails for them any way.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I must not speak at too great length.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have only spoken of two of the bits of road that these gentlemen opposite are going to buy, and now as to the two gaps they are going to fill in. But what more does their proposition involve 1 They propose to build these gaps at a cost of I do not know how much-I put it down at $4,000,000-but I will not commit myself to figures. Let me call the attention of the House to the fact that since hon. gentlemen opposite have announced their scheme, not one of them- except the member for Bothwell, and he only did so partially-not one of them has pretended to tell what the carrying out of their scheme will cost the country ; while on the other hand, we have given them every estimate and every detail of our scheme, and we believe our estimates to be correct. Therefore, I have to speak in general terms. But I put down-and I think it will be found to be a low estimate- -$4,000,000 as the cost of building these two gaps. That is putting the section which they are to build between Scotia Junction and Sudbury, which is a rough country at $25,000 a mile, which is the estimate we put upon our road through that level north country. I am charging no more for building through that rocky and difficult country than through the other ; but we want fair argument in this matter-no exaggerated figures. The proposition of the government stands out in bold relief to this, as two is to one.
Then, the buying of the boats-I put a query to that, how much ? I cannot tell you, and they have not told us. Surely they have a right to tell us what, or something approaching what, they will cosit. Then, I put another interrogative to the opposition : How many millions will they spend in assisting the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway in improving their roads from Fort William to Winnipeg ? They have not told us how much. Taking public money to pay the ordinary navvies employed on these two roads to make them better-to secure what? Well, to secure running rights to the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk over these roads; forgetting that we have been told by some of the highest authorities on the other side of the House -that that is simply

an impossibility-an unworkable scheme. You cannot do it ; but they are going to do it. They are not to own that road after they have expended their millions upon it ; but they are only to have the right to run their trains over it from Fort Wililam to Winnipeg. And all this for what ? t ask the question in all seriousness; all this expenditure, more, far more, than by any reasonable calculation will meet the cost of those 1.800 miles of railway that we will build and own-all for what ? Transportation facilities this country wants; that is its need, whether the roads are owned and run by the government or by companies. What the country wants is the cheapest transportation it can get, whether under government control or under private control. What are we going to get, I ask ? Not one additional mile of transportation facilities-not one. Does any one mean to tell me that the government of this country could manage the Canada Atlantic Railway, and carry more freight over it at less cost than is done under its present able management ? Why, that would be to belie every experience we have. You gain not one iota, then, in solving the transportation problem. Will those facilities which they propose to buy carry one bushel more grain because they are owned by the government than if owned by an independent company? To ask the question is to answer it. To buy that section of the Canadian Pacific Railway-G29 miles cut out of it-does not lay a single new rail or another track. It is the same track, the same accommodation, not enlarged one iota for that expense. Do the running rights, secured by the expenditure of millions, over the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway from Fort William to Winnipeg, add to the facilities of transportation ? Not one iota. You have expended your millions, but you have not increased your transportation facilities by one bushel of grain or one pound of freight. That is the scheme of my hon. friends opposite.
Now, I want to have a little quiet pleasantry with my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). I had not the pleasure of hearing his whole speech; but I read an article in the ' Mail ' of August 29 upon it. I always supposed that the 'Mail' was a friend of the hon. member for East Grey, but I do not see why it should do him the unkindness of publishing this portion of his speech. Of course, delivered as it was in a thin House, and embalmed in ' Hansard,' there was not much chance of any one seeing it if the ' Mail ' had not given publication to such a statement as this. Referring to the Grand Trunk Pacific my hon. friend said:
What does this scheme mean to the province X represent ? Suppose \ve build the 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 Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
to Onta.rio ? It means that in proportion, as you make that road a great success, you impoverish the transportation routes we have today. You take away the trade that comes today to our Georgian Bay ports in the east, and that comes from Port Arthur and the head of Lake Superior to the west. It takes away the earning powers of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway. It reduces their earning powers to the same extent as you make this other line a success. You must do it at their expense.
He sees no hope of expansion in trade; anything that is done must be done at tlie. expense of other companies; there can be no new business. There will not be under their system, I grant you; but be was speaking of ours. Therefore, be is concerned for the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific. All right ; but let us not forget that the plan of our bon. friends is to extend the Intercolonial into Winnipeg. Well, 1 suppose, in the hon. gentleman's concern for the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway, be would run the Intercolonial trains empty backward and forward just to show that hie owned the road, or else we do the other roads some injury. Sorry as be is about our scheme, be fears that it is going through, and he becomes resigned. He says:
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 it to this House, to this country and to the world.
Well, my hon friend was sad ! I fear that the scheme is going through, and if it should interfere with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway, and the Grand Trunk Railway, we cannot help it. The country must go ahead. We have no feeling against those companies. We have largely subsidized and aided the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway, and I am very glad that we have done so. We have done very much for them in the past, and what they want in the future, in the interests of the country, they will get, I have not the least doubt, from this party or any other party-hut no corporation in the country is greater than the country, and the interest of no corporation will be allowed to stand in the way of this parliament legislating for the good of the country in such direction as it may seem fit.
Let us resume our narrative. The opposition are only at Winnipeg yet. They are in there only by going over 432 miles which they do not own. But what about the bon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). He pro-

poses to assist the Grand Trunk Railway to build on reasonable terms from Winnipeg to Edmonton. But in what manner and at what price ? Is this aid they are going to give to be in cash or a guarantee ol bonds ?


Mr. CLANCY.: It is to be reasonable aid, The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS. Reasonable. I am glad my hon. friend is there. He approached the discussion of this subject with about as fair a mind as any hon. gentleman on the other side, and while I do not wish to obtrude in family affairs, or offer my advice where it is not solicited, still I would suggest, that if by any chance there should be a change of government and this policy of buying the Canadian Pacific Railway be carried out, I hope that my hon. friend will be Finance Minister, because he places the cost of that road at only $45,000 per mile, and will thus save the country a good deal of money. In what shape are we to give this guarantee ? WTe aid the company for that thousand-mile by guaranteteing their bonds. There is not a penny of cost to us. We simply guarantee their bonds. If they pay the interest-and no one doubts that they will not be able to do it-we will not be a cent out of pocket. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, which will lease our line from Winnipeg to Moncton, will have that line fed by the Grand Trunk Railway and by its own western traffic. There will therefore be trade and traffic to go over it. But who will there be to feed the Intercolonial Railway, which the hon. gentleman would bring to Winnipeg ? Will the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway ? Certainly not. You run your Intercolonial Railway to 'Winnipeg and there you stand. But where are you going to get your freight ? Will the Canadian Pacific Railway hand it over to you ? Not at all, because they will use their own road. Will the Canadian Northern Railway ? Certainly not, because they have a road of their own to use. Where then are you going to get your freight ? You may ask, where do these other roads get it. Well, they gather it through the prairies. But you will be in Winnipeg going over a country which it traversed by three other roads. I am afraid that the hon. member from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) would arrange things in such a fashion that the Intercolonial Railway will be running up and down there for the fun of it. What is the use of talking of extending the Inter colonial Railway to Winnipeg, at the cost of millions or tens of millions-I shall not be extravagant and say hundreds of millions-and leaving it there ?


James Clancy: The hon. minister is prov ing that there is no necessity for a transcontinental line.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am glad to see that my hon. friend cannot
weaken my argument any more than he has done, because their proposition seemed to me so ridiculous that I thought there must be some solution of it. Apparently, however, there is none. We are building a road, Mr. Speaker, to a new country. The government are going to open up 3,000 miles of new territory. We are going to have the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway develop our western prairies and establish their steamship lines on the Pacific ocean, thus making traffic for the railway. Here is the advantage of our system, and it is not too late yet for hon. gentlemen opposite to support it. I ask them again who is to feed their road, which they will be running at so heavy expense. There is no one. Their scheme will mean empty trains at an expenditure of tens of millions of dollars, which may run into the hund-Teds of millions. I am not pretending to give you figures because you can figure it out for yourselves.
What we propose in regard to the mountain section is this : At a cost of about $450,000 per year, for seven years, which, if we paid all at once, would be a little more than $3,000,000, but which is spread over seven years, making the burden very light, we get a road built from Edmonton to the Rockies and the Pacific coast. Then our payments ceases. Hon. gentlemen opposite propose to build the mountain road.
I am taking that road on their own calculation, 500 miles at $50,000 per mile. Therefore, I estimate precisely for them what 1 estimate for us. They would build that road, 500 miles, at a cost of $50,000 per mile, which on the basis of my other calculation, making $25,000,000, and give running rights to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway over it. They do not say that they reserve to themselves the right to run their own Intercolonial Railwav cars over it. I have failed to discover that. They should at any rate make provision, as we have done, that the Intercolonial Railway trains may run over It.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman permit me ? The Minister of Finance calculated it 480 miles at $40,000 per mile.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I made no calculation at $40,000 per mile. I made a calculation at the limit established by the contract, which is $30,000 per mile, and which is the extent of our obligation.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: My hon. friend marred a somewhat able speech by a habit he has of just catching up a little difference like that, which should not come into consideration when you are talking about miles where there is not final survey or estimate. What is the use of talking about the difference between 480 miles or 450 miles or 550 miles ? What difference does that make in my argument, when I take precisely the same basis of calculating

the cost under their scheme that I do under ours ? That is not a criticism worthy of the hon. gentleman, and he would do better to try and keep on a higher plane. He is going to build that road for, say $25,000,000. Then he will lease it, I suppose, to the Canadian Northern Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and if he can get to it, he will arrange I . suppose to have the Intercolonial trains run over it. But how are they going to get over the intervening 1,000 miles between that piece of road in the mountains and the road finishing at Winnipeg ? When they get to Winnipeg, they seem to be tired and to want to rest. But when they are rested a few years, they will try and find a practicable route across the prairies, and then reserve running rights over this mountain section. This is to come after a few years. Well, I suppose that after trains have stood in Winnipeg for a while, after the lapse of some years-hon. gentlemen opposite do not tell us how many-our western farmers will have a chance to have some grain taken out by this government road. This will be a colonization road, a much cheaper road than we are going to build from Moncton to Winnipeg. They say it is to be built after some years, and will be built as a colonization road, I suppose with its light rails, sharp curves and heavy grades-and this is the road that is to afford relief to our farmers and prevent congestion of traffic. What a bonanza ? How the lands will increase in value in that country' when it is known what is proposed ! But, after they have had this colonization road running a thousand miles over the prairie,they are to build a piece of transcontinental road, a better road. Never mind paralleling and destroying the Intercolonial-they tell us they will build a better road than the Intercolonial Railway, from Levis to Moncton. But how will that dove-tail in with this colonization road from L6vis to the Rocky mountains ? This little one-horse railway will come down with its light engines and its few cars on a train and hand over the traffic to the road at Levis, to be taken over this road the cost of which we have estimated at $10,000,000, while they say $15,000,000-though that makes no difference, because, no matter what it costs us, they are going to make a better road than the Intercolonial, and it must therefore cost about the same as ours. So you have this fine road from Levis east to Moncton, and you have this colonization road trundling down its cars from the prairie country. I suppose that your road from Levis eastward with its heavy engines, its straight road and fine gradients, which will haul three times os many cars as the colonization road which is built to feed it, will run only one train in three days in order to allow for the second-class facilities of the other road. But ^ at least, with their plan, such as it is, these hon. gentlemen will have reached from ocean to ocean.


William Paterson: What then ? Under our contract we secure magnificent ocean fleets on the Pacific and magnificent ocean fleets on the Atlantic. We secure for the man in the west, as for the man in any part of this Dominion, a great working system which will be able to cope with an export rate from any far distant point in the North-west through to Liverpool and invaluable advantage to the people in cheapening through transportation. But under this scheme of hon. gentlemen opposite, where is your traffic ? And where are your fleets V You may provide this little line, but that is not developing the North-west, that is not providing the transportation facilities that are needed by the people of the prairies, that is not enhancing the value of the lands there. You must be prepared to quote as low rates as the other roads quote or you cannot get the export trade. So, you must consider the cost of your fleets, I will not attempt an estimate; I leave that for hon. gentlemen opposite. This is their scheme, and they are bound to give us some figures, some detail with reference to their plan. The government's plan is there, in black and white, duly signed-signed by men of repute, signed by the ablest railway men in the world, 1 believe. These men are not mere promoters. Mr. Charles M. Hays was-declared by the hon. member for Bast York (Mr. Maclean) two years ago to be the ablest railway man on the continent. Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson is known; Mr. Wainwright is known; Mr. John Bell, of Belleville, is known. These are the men who have signed that contract, and under that contract there is to be provided a line from ocean to ocean with its steamers on the Pacific to trade with the Orient, with its steamers on the Atlantic to carry the products of our western fields and of all portions of the Dominion to the furthermost nations on earth. That is what our scheme means. And as against this, hon. gentlemen opposite propose to build grain elevators at the country's expense to save the farmers of the North-west from building a hundred thousand barns. Why, the farmers of the North-west are not here asking for charity; they are not here asking the country to build the barns for them. Building elevators at the country's expense 1 Where will you get the grain to put in them ? You cannot get it on the prairies with such a road as is proposed by them ; you cannot get it at Winnipeg, for the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway will not give it to you, hut will haul the grain to the head of the lakes or down to the Atlantic seaboard as the case may be and store it in their own elevators. I am afraid it will not work. The farmers will have to build their own barns, unless hon. gentlemen opposite can propose something better than this. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what does their whole scheme mean, this scheme which is to be carried out at the expense of untold millions-what

does it mean of actual accomplishment in the way of providing increased transportation facilities Nothing will be accomplished by it that cannot and is not accomplished better and more cheaply by the scheme proposed by the government. More than one of the hon. gentlemen opposite have told us that the congestion in the west is not due to there not being sufficient railway tracks, but to there not being sufficient rolling stock. Then let the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway buy more rolling stock and more locomotives. And in doing so either they wall buy them in Canada and so give employment to our own men, or they will import them from foreign countries, in which case the Customs Department would see to it that the revenue derivable therefrom is duly placed in the public exchequer.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us turn from the consideration of such a scheme as this and take a dispassionate view of the contract before us, this contract providing for the construction of a grand national transcontinental railway to meet the growing wants, and develop the resources of this country.
But before we do that, let me just for one moment allude to the objections raised by hon. gentlemen opposite. Nearly all, if not all of these objections, have been removed by their own plan. We heard a great deal at the start about paralleling the Intercolonial and destroying it by building from I-evis to Moncton, but their plan destroyed that argument. They said that our road is a hybrid system-but theirs is more. They said you could not give running rights to other companies, that that plan would not work, and yet they propose to buy a section and give the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway and the Intercolonial Railway running rights over it. But under our scheme they said you could not do it, you could not operate with running rights. Our proposition means an enormous addition to the debt, they say. Well, theirs means more. That I think is evident from what I have already said. They are going to do everything we had proposed except that they are going to build this as a colonization road in the north, saving perhaps $5,000 or $10,000 a mile on its construction, and in addition elevators are to be built, other roads are to be bought, and fleets are to be acquired on the lakes. Therefore, I think the less we hear from hon. gentlemen opposite about the expense of this contract the easier it will be for them in the time to come, when we have to debate this question in the presence of a larger audience, when the electors of this country shall be assembled, when the time comes for which some hon. gentlemen opposite profess to be anxious, and we appear before the electors to debate this subject with them. Let me tell them we are ready for that time whether it come early or come late, and, let there be no mistake, this subject will be discussed. No matter how our friends opposite may try to shirk it, we will see that they are held to it.


Mr. BOYD.: You cannot bring it on too quickly.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Too quickly 1 My hon. friend does not seem to be in a hurry for it, because he is moving a dilatory motion.
I have said that there was need of a grand transcontinental road. This country does riot want any such scheme as the opposition are talking about. The hon. members themselves are ashamed of it, they have not defended it in this House, aird I have noticed that their newspapers as a rule, do not defend the project as a whole. There have been one or two editorials-I read the ' Mail ' and the ' World ' regularly, although, of course, I take the antidote in the ' Globe ' and other papers in which I place more reliance-but the Conservative papers have scarcely had an editorial on the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition. They have not had editorials on the whole of this scheme, but they profess to quote from the Montreal ' Witness' from the ' Journal ' of Ottawa and from the ' News.' They give extracts from these papers. Come out and defend your own policy !
The hon. senior member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), has not yet spoken ; like myself, I suppose, he has not had an opportunity. He is going to follow me, I believe he likes that, and I do not object. The hon. member, with the hon. member from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) visited the north-west Territories last October. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was also there. He was true and loyal there and he declared that his leader was the whitest man in that country or any other country-and I quite agree with him ; I believe he has as leader a very fine gentleman-I have not a word to say against him -except that he is not able to grasp this railway problem intelligently. These gentlemen were out in the west in October last and discussed these questions with the people of that country, and I want to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) when he follows me, whether he views the necessity of further railway facilities in the west in the same light now as he did at that time, or whether he has lost faith in that country. They spoke of the transportation problem ; they were anxious to have more roads, and they saw the necessity of having them. And people, no doubt, listening to them, believed that if these gentlemen' obtained power they would give transcontinental roads, and not a hotcli potch of bought up roads that are in existence to-day. I have here a report of a speech made by the worthy leader of the opposition for whom-and I

say this in all earnestness-I entertain a very great respect. Speaking on this subject at West Selkirk, he was thus reported by the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' :	.
Mr. Borden assured the audience that the Liberal-Conservative party, the only party that had ever accomplished anything in the direction of improved methods of transportation, was still prepared to devote all its energy aud courage to the solution of difficulties.
I wish hon. gentlemen would devote themselves to the solution of this project of theirs in order that we might know what it is going to cost, how it is to be worked out, and where it is going.
Railway matters were now reduced to a science, and it could not be expected that a minister of railways who had spent all his time in a law office in New Brunswick, would be qualified to deal with them in a practical manner.


Mr. WADE.: Who said that ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden). He did not say that lawyers in other places could not do it, it was only in St. John.
They took out also our genial young friend the youngest in that party in years, I think, although not in parliamentary life, a bright genial young man with ail the aspirations of youth, the hon. member for East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey). This hon. gentleman is reported as speaking as follows :
In regard to transportation, he remarked that the strength of a chain was in its weakest link,, and the chain of transportation should be complete. The government however was not giving enough time to the west, which had not a quarter of the transportation facilities necessary to its wants. Mr. Tarte, he claimed, was the avowed champion of the Canadian Pacific Railway and yet. he was a minister of the Crown.
This was in October last, I may say. They speak more kindly now.
There could be little doubt that the glut or block of last year would this year be intensified ten times. The government was not big enough for the job. There ought to be three competing lines across the country, and the policy of the government ought to he to grant charters to all legitimate persons who asked for privileges. The Liberals, he said, had had more opportunities than any one during the ia3t twenty years for doing those things, hut the North-west had not benefited one iota in the matter of cheap transportation.
Nowt we can see how these gentlemen were impressed, as any man must be, wlio travels over these vast plains and sees their possibilities. When he sees the hundreds and thousands of settlers who have gone In within the last few years and thinks of the increasing number that in all probability will' go in there, no man, it seems to me, could witness these things and be filled with any other spirit than that which was manifested by our young friend on that occasion. Speaking at another time, he said:


William Paterson: Transportation is the great question of thi3 country. The Conservative party built the Canadian Pacific Railway and had they remained in power would have built the shortest and best route to the 3ea.
Right in favour of this road that we are giving them now :
He advocated generous outlays for transportation for this country. The reason the lands in the territories are not increasing more rapidly in value is the lack of transportation. We should have several systems across this country.
And then my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) himself was there :
Mr. Clarke made some complimentary reference to the chairman whose family he had known in Ireland

And so on. He does just what you or I would do ; he tries to find favour with the electors and to create a favourable impression. He tries to make friends. He is right. Still, he must carry out his impressions.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the hon. minister quoting from ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: From the Souris ' Plaindealer ' of October 17 :
He went on to speak of the future of western Canada giving his opinion that no man had the slightest conception of the development that would take place in Manitoba and territories in the next twenty years. The transportation problem was the burning question and Mr. Roblin's action in this regard he looked upon as the first step towards government ownership. The possibility was not far distant when three or four transcontinental railways would be required. He then severely criticised the Liberal government for the money wasted in their slipshod, incapable efforts t* grapple with the transportation problem in the Yukon ' Tramway,' the Crow's Nest Railway, the Intercolonial Railway. The ghastly wrecks that littered the shores of the St. Lawrence, &c.
Well, now, remembering that, will my hon. friend rise in this House and advocate the destroying, the nullifying, the rejecting from this House of a proposition to secure one grand transcontinental railway at a sum of money that| I venture to say here will not be felt as an appreciable burden by any man, woman, or child in this country ? Transcontinental roads are not composed of rolling stock. A transcontinental road means iron laid over which produce may he carried and passengers transported. It does not mean the buying up of an existing railway or a simple change of ownership. I want to know and I will listen to him explain if he can, whether, with these impressions that were created in his mind and which would be created in the mind of any man who gazed upon the fertile lands of the west that yield so bountifully, as he travelled through that magnificent country, having professed to offer to the people of the North-west Territories bread, as I consider he did 'offer

them bread, he is now prepared to give them a stone in the shape of the proposition which has been brought down by the bon. leader of the opposition. Let ns examine this transcontinental railway scheme, and this contract which is before the House. 1 propose to look at two phases of it. I propose to ask, first, what is the country to get ouf of it, and in the second place, what has the country to pay for it 7 Well, Sir, in the first place, we get a grand trunk continental railway which will stretch from ocean to ocean, which will open up and develop the middle districts of New Brunswick, five counties of Quebec on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, which will open up northern Quebec and northern Ontario, the vast territory north of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, and the mineral regions of British Columbia. That I mention as something we will get. Every province will benefit. That is what I understand as an element that is required in a national transcontinental railway. Fault has been found, and something approachlug sneers have been cast up, because representatives from the maritime provinces insisted that in this grand transcontinental scheme the provinces by the Atlantic should be considered, and why not ? Are the million of people in the maritime provinces who are paying their taxes not to be considered when questions affecting this country are dealt with 7 Is it a reproach to any man 7 Can he be charged with sectionalism if he says, that, when a grand national project is undertaken (if you can without added cost benefit this part of the country, we desire to participate in the benefits of it). I much mistake me if parliament and the people of Canada will not say that they shall participate in the benefits of the scheme. Then the question is asked : Why should Prince Edward Island and.Nova Scotia share in it 7 True the road does not go into these provinces. ; People ask what is the good of the road to these provinces and what is the use of agitating for it 7 What does it mean to your iron _ industries in Nova Scotia 7 What does it'mean to your other industries 7 The business men of Nova Scotia know it means enlarged markets, and development. What does it mean to prince Edward Island 7 True, it does not cross to the Island ; it goes to Moncton, within fifteen minutes of Point du Chene, where you can take the boat and go across, and if with the development of these industries that green isle, which is the real garden of Canada, and which is so rich iu agricultural wealth, has an increased market for some of its products, Prince Edward Island will fully benefit from it. Then, what will it do for New Brunswick 7 Notwithstanding that some New Brunswick members have ventured to describe their own country as a country the middle portion of which was not worth being opened
up, I am glad to hear other hon. members who think more of their province declaring that this road is going to be a great benefit to them. Then, what is there in it for my province 7-asked the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) on a previous occasion. Well, I do not want to be sectional in this matter. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) also wanted to know something about his province and he also asked :	What ' does it mean
to my province 7 His province is my province. I will tell him what it means to my province not giving it any special favours, but giving it a transcontinental railway, it means the opening up of 800 miles of territory that will be a source of wealth to the Ontario government for generations to come, and it will not cost the people of my province as a province one cent. That is what it means.


Mr. SPROULE.: What will the road be built out of if it does not cost that province one penny ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I said that it would not cost, them a cent out of their provincial treasury. It will come out of the public treasury, of course, and coming out of the public treasury I am glad that in carrying out a grand national idea every province and territory in this Dominion will participate in its benefits. What do we bear the opposition say even conservative members from the province of Ontario 7-No good territory up there-jack pine and hemlock-a sub-Arctic region-cold-muskegs. We hear them running down their country. That is the description they give of this territory which, as I firmly believe, is a valuable heritage to this province and to this Dominion. Has it come to this that we have to-day a party in this country that in the past have been known by the name of the Liberal-Conservative party, and that must hereafter be known as the little Canada party 7 We are asking for no expenditure of money from the treasury iu taking possession of that land. It is ours and we are carrying out this grand national idea. We are opening up and developing that country and we are giving the breadth and strength to this Dominion that it lacks at the present time. Let us have no more whimpering and -whining. Let us believe in a greater Canada. That is what we believe in.
You would have a country here that would be a mere fringe hanging on to cliffs over Superior's waters, as their railway policy wants to keep us for all time. And the nations that come to read of this great Dominion with its million inhabitants in the maritime provinces, its two million in Quebec, its two million in Ontario, and its millions in Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia : these nations will learn that We are only connected together by a little narrow fringe on the

rocky coast of Lake Superior, where if the cars went off the track we would be lost sight of. Let the gentlemen on the other side of the House keep up that idea;' let them If they like declare it in their policy ; but we have a broader and a wider and a wiser policy. We believe we have a country which under this scheme will not only have breadth but depth as well. Where hon. gentlemen opposite talk about jack pine, poplar, and muskeg, we believe we have millions of fertile acres to which settlement will go, and which will be developed by means of this railway. That is what we gain. Mr. Speaker, by this project.
What more do we gain ? This road will run entirely through Canadian territory, and it will cause us to cease to be dependent, so far as its traffic is concerned, on the favour of the United States to secure access to the Atlantic seaboard. A good many gentlemen on the other side referred to that part of the speech of the Prime Minister, in which he gave as one of the reasons for the construction of this railway that it would make us entirely independent of the Americans ; that should they ever- which he trusted they would not, and he did not think they would-should they ever terminate the treaty by which mutual reciprocal bonding arrangements are given between the United States and Canada, this railway would enable us to get along without suffering the inconvenience we otherwise would. These gentlemen opposite have insinuated that the right hon. gentleman did not know that we could reach our own Canadian ports by the existing railway system. But if these gentlemen had read the remarks of the Prime Minister, they would see that while he read these threatening letters of Mr. Carnegie to the London ' Times,' the right hon. gentleman said that Mr. Carnegie was mistaken, because we had access to our ports at all seasons of the year, and that they were not closed five months out of the twelve, as Mr. Carnegie had stated. The Prime Minister recognized that fact, but he added that we have not railway facilities enough in this country if the Americans should abrogate the bonding privilege, and he desired that Canada should be placed in a position of independence. Gentlemen opposite have been pleased to say that since this statement of the Prime Minister was ridiculed from their side, no speakers on this side of the House have alluded to it. That is not so, but, if there is anything ridiculous in the statement made by the Prime Minister, you ean count me in. I attach importance to this road on that account, and very great importance, too. While I say that. X at the same time do not believe that the United States will do away with that treaty. I believe the United States receive as much benefit under that treaty ns we do, and being in charge of the Department of Customs, which of course is more directly interested in the matter, Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
1 have to bear testimony that our American neighbours in every matter connected with the bonding arrangements and wherever we have asked for an additional port, have courteously conceded it, as we on our part have done the same. I must say that the utmost good feeling prevails in that respect. But I tell you, that when Andrew Carnegie or any man of standing undertakes to write as an American citizen to such an influential journal as the London ' Times,' and endeavours to spread the belief in the minds of the English people, that if the 'bonding privilege were withdrawn we could not ship our grain to England, then, Sir, I must recognize the fact that Canada does well to provide by other means an additional outlet for her products. Let me point out that there is a good deal of trade coming to us through American channels.
The imports into Canada for the fiscal year 1902 were $212,270,158. The imports purchased from the United States were $129,801,847, and therefore the total imports purchased from all countries other than the United States amounted to $82,468,311.
Now, of that amount, $22,313,751 of our imports from foreign countries other than the United States, came through United States ports to us ; while $60,154,560 came through our own ports.
And now as to exports. The total exports of domestic produce in 1902 amounted to $196,019,703, and the exports sold to the United States amounted to $66,567,784. The value of exports of domestic produce sold to foreign countries other than the United States therefore was $129,451,979. The value of merchandise exported to foreign countries through the United States was $48,192,850 ; and the value of merchandise exported to foreign countries through our own ports was $81,259,129.
I give you these figures so that you may see that that is a large shipment of both imports and exports through the United States to or from Canada. If that privilege were withdrawn-and as I said before, I do not believe it will-it could not be without inflicting injury upon the United States, but nevertheless, when I find American citizens, for the purpose of trying to prevent Canadian farmers getting some cents a bushel more for their grain, using that argument,' fallacious though it may be, I believe in taking any strength there may be in such argument out of it, and providing another means for our products reaching other countries. I do not lose sight of the fact that our fertile plains are filling up, that our own sons have gone in there strong, sturdy and true Canadians, with the love of Canada in their hearts; and thousands and thousands have come to us from the United Kingdom, and we welcome them- they come with a strong British feeling in their hearts to make the very best of Canadians. But there are also large numbers coming from foreign countries and settling

there. They come without that strong feeling of Canadian nationhood that the others possess, but they will. I believe, become good citizens, and loyal to this Canada of ours, I believe, Sir, that nothing should be left undone to give satisfaction to the people who come to dwell with us, and with the intention of being fellow-citizens of ours in this country.
Should such an event happen as the doing away with the bonding privilege, we can stand it. Canadians cannot be coerced. The United States would suffer, but we would suffer too, for this reason, that though we have our outlet to the sea at all seasons of the year, yet, with the volume of trade that now comes to us through American ports, crowded in upon the trade that comes through our own ports, you would have a blockade in this country that would entail most serious loss on all our shippers and producers. Fancy all the exports of this growing country, in a few years from now, forced on one line of railway to find their outlet for five months of the year, and you would have congestion, delay and discontent arising in the minds of those whom we ought to take every means to make loyal, contented and happy. I believe in this expenditure to make us absolutely independent and unharmed, even if the United States should see fit to do away with the bonding privilege.
This railway will give the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west Territories railway competition, with its accompanying tendency of reduction in freight rates. 1 look for lower rates of freight through competition. It meets an imperative demand on the part of western Canada for better transportation facilities. Millions have been lost to the farmers in past years in consequence of the lack of facilities to transport the grain to market quickly; and in that remark I can only 'emphasize what I said before, that the opposition policy will not give one iota of relief in that direction. It will help to build up our Atlantic summer and winter ports; and fleets of steamships on both oceans will be provided without cost to us. It will give us another port on the Pacific, and thereby place us in a better position to compete for the trade of the Orient. It will attract immigration and capital. It will give a greater stimulus to the manufacturing industries of the country by enlarging the home market, to say nothing of the expenditure of money by the Grand Trunk Company and the government in the construction of the line. I need not go over that question; but you know that this company has to provide ,$20,000,000 worth of rolling stock, which will be made in the country if the factories are not crowded with work. But suppose that $10,000,000 worth of it is made in our own country and $10,000,000 worth is imported, because of our own factories not being able to keep up with the demand, you will have $3,500,000
of revenue from that. Then, consider all the men coming in, who will help to pay the revenue. I believe that the extra people to come into this country, necessitated by the building of this railway, and the additional development that it will produce in the country, will be such that by the time this railway is built and ready for operation, they will pay to the customs all that we shall have to pay during the seven years that the government will have to bear the interest on the cost of the road. When you consider the list of supplies that will have to come in, read by the hon. member from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) the other day, you can see how widely the influence of this enterprise will extend. It will give the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec, now on the line of the Grand Trunk, an alternative line for the shipment of their goods to Manitoba and the North-west. Heretofore they have had to go to the North-west either over the Canadian Pacific Railway by North Bay or through American channels. This cannot but prove to be of advantage to these manufacturers.
Now, why should we not have the Grand Trunk in Manitoba and the North-west. I think my hon. friend from West Toronto favoured the Grand Trunk going into Manitoba. I think tbe hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) gave interviews in which he expressed the same view. Any business man in Ontario and Quebec knows what it means to him to have the Grand Trunk system extended into that country. You talk about the cost of carrying grain by rail. I do not go into that question. I believe a great deal of the grain will be carried by water; and the Grand Trunk will find its way to the water whenever it finds it necessary to do so. But while I love the North-west, I love the older provinces too, and we are not building this road simply to carry wheat out from the west. We want the older provinces to manufacture goods and send them up to the Northwest, where the people will buy them; and these goods do not go largely by water. I had myself some experience in business in days gone by, and no trifling difference in freight charges ever prevented me from shipping by rail. I wanted an all-rail shipment. I wanted to see the car loaded, and sealed through to its destination. That is the way a large part of the products of the older provinces will go to the west; and we want the Grand Trunk Railway, which has its ramifications in almost every village and town in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to carry our manufactured products into that western country to be sold to our western brethren, ana to bring down their produce in exchange for them.
By building and owning the road from Moncton to Winnipeg, the government will hold' a lever which can be operated to the advantage of the producers in the west and

the manufacturers in the east. Moreover, its being under the control of the government, United States control over it cannot be acquired, as has been feared by public men in respect of other railways.. Here I will give you the view's of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), who, speaking in the House of Commons oil the 19th of February, 3901, said that the great railroads of Canada were liable at any moment to pass into the control of a great railway syndicate in the United States. If they did secure control, the hon. gentleman said, they could ruin the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian citizen, by the local rates which they could impose on our local traffic, and by the preference which they could give to American products and manufactures coming into this country. He said we would be their serfs and servitors. Speaking on the same subject, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier used this language :
We are in the presence of a great danger, and surely we have the power in this parliament. without being obliged to buy -over again these lines which we have built largely with our own money, to discover some legislative remedy which will enable us to "ward off that impending danger, anil to keep these great railway- lines in our control, for the purpose of developing our own country, instead of allowing them to be used for the development of the neighbouring republic.
Well, Sir, I perhaps do not fear the introduction of American capital into Canada for Investment In our enterprises so much as some other gentlemen do, but I can say to these gentlemen that by building and owning, as we will, these 1,800 miles of railway from the Atlantic sea-hoard to the city of Winnipeg, no American syndicate or any other can control that railway, for it will belong to the people.
The rates and tolls to be levied and taken by the company upon aijy part of the said railway shall be under the control of the Governor in Council or of Such authority, commission or tribunal as is designated or constituted under any Act of the parliament of Canada for the regulation or control of the business of railways.
There is no ten per cent profit in' this contract before the rates can be lowered- nothing of that kind.
Then again the contract reads :
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its branches not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that at the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
time be greater via the Canadian ports than Via United States ports.
The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) tried to make light of that clause. He said the company would get around it anyway. Well, Mr. Speaker, it takes two parties to make a bargain, and I wonder if you could expect any party to a bargain to bind himself more than the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway has bound itself by tills contract. But the hon. gentleman pointed out that the billing clerks might, unknown to the managers-or the managers might give them a hint this way or that-avoid this agreement, and the government would only have $5,000,000 of rolling stock as security if the company did not carry out its agreement, or that might be frittered away and there would be no security. Well, all I have to say is that If there are 1,800 miles of railway leased to this company, upon which they will have to pay three per cent interest, and which will cost them perhaps within the neighbourhood of $2,000,000 a year, I do not see how they will he able to afford to let any part of it lie idle.
The company shall arrange for and provide, either by purchase, charter or otherwise, shipping connections both on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, sufficient in tonnage and in number of sailings to take care of and transport all its traffic, both inward and outward, at such ocean ports within Canada, upon the said line of railway, or upon the line of the Intercolonial Railway, as may he agreed upon from time to time..
I have hastily run over the advantages of this contract. I have shown what we are to get. What are we to pay for this ? Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about $55,000,000. The Prime Minister told us that the cost to this country would be about $13,000,000 or $14,000,000. The Finance Minister made n. careful actuarial calculation and showed that if between $13,000,000 and $14,000,000 were invested now and paid out in instalments during' the twelve years elapsing between the beginning of construction and the end of the seven years, after construction, that would pay all the cost. Hon. gentlemen opposite understand this, but it suits their purpose of course to obscure the issue.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does the hon. gentleman mean by the cost ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I mean what every business man would mean. I mean what we will have to pay in order to get this road. We build the 1,800 miles and we borrow the money to build them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely that is the cost ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We expel id the money and build it, whether we pay $55,000,000 or $60,000,000, then we have the road, and at the end of the fifty years, when these bonds mature, they will have to be paid. Make the amount $50,000,000 if you choose ; at the end of fifty years $50,000.000 worth of bonds will mature, for which

we are liable. If we pay this amount, we will have a road that represents $50,000,000. If we do not want to pay the $50,000,000 out of the treasury, we can sell the road to another company perhaps for $75,000,000, or at any rate for $50,000,000. I should not lie surprised, though I cannot promise fifty years ahead that when the fifty years elapse Canadian credit will be sufficiently good, that if we wish to renew those bo'nds, we can renew them at two per cent instead of three per cent. We can eliminate from this discussion altogether the time when the bonds come due. The interest is paid after the seven years by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, so .that we are not out of pocket one cent all that time. Of course I do not lose sight of the fact that possibly, during that long period of fifty years, our Conservative friends may snatch power for a few years, but I do not believe it is possible, even for them, in the time given them to hold the reins of power, to so arrest the development of this country that the road will not be worth what it costs. I do not believe they can do it. Therefore the capital cost does not come into consideration at all: and when the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister spoke about the cost to this country, they meant what this country will have to pay in cash in order to have a transcontinental road from ocean to ocean. For the first seven years after construction, the government must pay the interest on the amount of bonds issued for the construction of the eastern division and on the bonds issued by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway on the mountain division to the extent of $30,000 per mile. After the seven years, our payments will cease for all time to come, and we will have the benefit of the road. There can be no doubt that the burden will be very light. Why, in the last six years this government have paid out of the revenues of this country over $16,000,000 in enlarging and developing our canal system. The $13,000,000 or $14,000,000 which," if invested to-day would pay for this transcontinental railway during the years I have mentioned. the Finance Minister does not intend to invest in that way. He will use it to Pay, not only the ordinary expenditure of this country, but the capital expenditure as well, and the balance will be used to reduce the debt of this Dominion; and I think it will be found, when that is done, that this government will have been in power seven years and will have expended over $40,000.000 on canal improvements and railways over and above ordinary expenditure, and will have added but a very few million dollars to our debt after all that vast expenditure. And I have not the least doubt that year after year, as new inhabitants come into the country and the receipts of the treasury are increased, we will be able to pay the charges for this railway out of ordinary revenue and have a surplus in the treasury besides. And therefore I say this 323
road will be constructed, in my judgment, without adding to any appreciable extent to the burdens of the people. I need not say more. I think I have already taken up too much time. I will close the few remarks to our friends opposite.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson), as he is well versed in these matters, what the canals of our country have cost us ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have not the exact figures-*somewhere in the region of $70,000,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And does not that $70,000,000 stand as part of our public debt V


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And would not that amount to build this road stand against us in the same way ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It would stand against us, no doubt, but on the other side of the account you will have the debentures issued by the commissioners which will cover the debt. That is how it will be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman admitted that the canals cost us something like $72,000,000 or $73,000,000. If we could rent the canals at an amount which would pay us 3 per cent'on the cost in perpetuity, would he say that we had liquidated the debt ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I would say that the canals had ceased to be a burden upon us. If a man has a debt, and somebody agrees to pay the interest on it for him, he need not worry about it. And that is the way it would be with this road in our case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But would the minister (Hon. Mr. Paterson) say that under such an arrangement the canals had cost us nothing ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I must refer my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) to the gentleman whom his party look to as their coming Finance Minister, and who sits behind him. That hon. gentleman will tell him that if on one hand you incur a debt, and if, on the other, you acquire an asset the value of which is equal to the debt, you need not keep awake at night worrying about the interest. You will have the road, which will be good value for every dollar put into it. And, year by year, for seven years, you pay this interest and it will not amount in all to more than I have given at the extravagant estimates of cost made by hon. gentlemen opposite. And my strong belief is that every year, out of ordinary revenue we will be able to meet these expenses, and so not lay any additional burden upon the country. And, the result will be that you will

have this great transcontinental road, as set forth in detail in this contract. And how about the scheme of hon. gentlemen opposite ? We want a resolution from them. It is not too late yet. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) should embody in a resolution this patch-work scheme of theirs. As we have given definite details of our proposition, we have a right to claim that theirs shall also be formally recorded. Why have they not done it already ? I can understand the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker),- who sits smiling, when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) says, ' we had better embody this in a resolution ; we have talked about being bold and courageous, and it does not look very bold and courageous if we only talk and do not commit ourselves to a resolution,'-I can imagine the hon. gentleman from Hamilton saying : ' Oh, no, you must not do that, for, don't you remember, I said that it was impossible for one road to give running rights over its line to another ? And now in this scheme you are going to give running rights to four roads. Ob, no, you must not put it in a resolution.' And the hon. member fcr South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) would say ' You may talk all you like, but you must not present a resolution, because I pronounced against government ownership of railways altogether, and that is a part of your scheme.' Then the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) would say, ' Oh, no, don't put it in a resolution ; talk as much as you like, but you must remember that I said that colonization roads were to run north and south, and here you are projecting one to run from Winnipeg to Moncton.' And other hon. members would say, 'we have sent out ever so many speeches made by a very eminent gentleman whom we have cracked up as the ablest railway man in this country, who has declared, in his speech, that a road cannot be worked on what he called a hybrid basis. How can you expect us to vote for a resolution that has three or four hybrids in it ? For pity's sake don't put it in a motion.' And the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) would say, ' No, no. Didn't I tell the farmers that this scheme of the government would mortgage their land and put shackles on their legs with its enormous expenditure ? And here you are proposing to go into twice as great an expenditure. How could I bear to have those farmers look at the shackles and then turn their reproachful gaze on me ? For pity's sake, don't put it in a resolution. Talk as much as you like, but do not propose a resolution.'


Mr. DAVIS.: They won't.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: They won't, I believe. Some hon. gentlemen have expressed a desire that this question be argued before the electors. When the time comes, I think they will have their de-Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
sire gratified, for the Liberal party will see to it that this is not lost sight of. Whether they are as anxious to have this matter discussed as they say they are, I do not know. Some of these hon. gentlemen tell us that this matter ought to be discussed with the people before it is closed. Well, the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), who is a lawyer of repute sitting on that side of the House said-and, if I remember well, the same opinion was expressed by the hon. member tor Hamilton (Mr. Barker)-that there was a clause in this contract under which the government could suspend operations on the eastern section at any time. If the opinion of these lawyers is correct, the question will be open. If their party comes into powei-, then, acting under this clause, they can stop operations on the eastern section. I do not say I agree with them, but that is the position they take in this matter. All I can say is, let the election come when it may, early or late- there is no use in boasting, and elections are proverbially uncertain-we on this side are not afraid of the result. I believe that it will be found that the sense of the country is with us Under what banner will hon. gentlemen opposite assemble in the contest that is coming ? It will be under the banner inscribed ' Little Canada.' And they will declare to the people that Canada is only held together by a fringe overhanging Lake Superior, that that is the only place where you can build a road, that everything back of that is muskeg, jack pine, poplar and granite ridges. Are the young men of this country going to rally under a banner with that motto on it, or will they not want something to inspire them ? Will they not rather rally with us beneath a banner with the motto ' Greater Canada,' boldly declaring that we believe in our country which is second to none in - the world, a country which we believe should have depth as well as width, and with the battle cry ' Onward 1 still onward ! ' Do you think you can defeat that party ? Never.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sure the most enthusiastic admirer in this House of the speech to which we have just listened will not expect me to follow its ramifications in detail. Before the Minister of Customs took his seat, however, he made one statement to which I would like to reply. The hon. minister asked what possible prospect of success the Conservative party would have when next they appealed to the people of Canada upon the issues which separated the two parties if they went to the electorate bearing the banner of 'Little Canada'? I think, Mr. Speaker, that I can appeal to all fair minded men in this House and throughout Canada that if the banner of ' Little Canada,' if the policy of belittling Canada, if the policy of lack of confidence in the future of Canada, is borne or is presented

by any party in this country, it will be by the party of which the hon. gentleman is one of the leaders. The history of the policy of the two parties in Canada since confederation leaves no room for doubt on that score. The party which first of all united the several provinces into a confederation, the party which gave us the Intercolonial Railway, the party which gave us the Canadian Pacific Railway, extending from the western terminus of the Intercolonial Railway to the Pacific ocean, the party which built our canals, the party which made our water-ways navigable from the head of Lake Superior to the Atlantic-that party will never appeal to the people of Canada, and can never be made to appear to the people of Canada, as the Little Canada party. That party can appeal with confidence to the electors upon its past record and upon the platform which lias been laid down in this House during the last three years by its leader, and by the gentlemen who have the honour of supporting him.
The hon. minister in his opening remarks referred to the progress that is still being made and to the increase of imports into this country ; he referred with considerable pleasure and satisfaction to the fact that during the first two months of the present fiscal year the receipts from duties have increased by one million dollars as compared with the corresponding months of last, year, and he says the manufacturers of this country are so busy at the present time that they can fill only letter orders, that they have been obliged to call in their travellers because there is such a redundant prosperity in the country that they cannot accept all the orders that they might obtain. We can' congratulate the hon. gentleman on that happy condition of things, but we declare that the prosperity which obtains throughout Canada to-day is not by any means a result of any fiscal system that lion, gentlemen opposite may have improvised. It is rather the result of a series of abundant harvests which have blessed this country from end to end, and of the fact tl'at these lion, gentlemen ever since they attained to office have carefully avoided making any radical change in the fiscal policy Which they found on the statute-books when they came into office. The hon. gentleman says that as a result of the expansion which has taken place, and is taking place in this country, another transcontinental road is an absolute necessity. He says that we want additional facilities, and that under the plan presented to the House by the government these additional facilities are being abundantly provided. I was quite surprised to see the Minister of Customs rise in his place to take part in this debate, because if report spoke truly, if the statements that were being made about the corridors and in the House by those who are immediately associated witii 323i
the hon. gentleman and who are his political supporters were correct, no lion, gentleman on that side of the House was more opposed to the scheme which he has advocated to-day than was the hon. gentleman himself. What gave rise to his conversion ?
The circumstances under which the scheme we are considering was presented to the House were, to say the least, unusual. Parliament was called together on the 12th of March and in the speech from the Throne, placed in the mouth of His Excellency, we had a statement of the intention of the government to deal with this transportation question because, they declared :
The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
Later there was brought down a return to an Address of the House of Commons dated the 27tli of May, containing an abstract from the report of the committee of the hon. the Privy Council approved by the Governor General on the 19th of May, 1903, dealing with this very matter of making provision for the appointment of a commission to deal with this entire transportation question. Let me read again for the information of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House some of the paragraphs contained in this report of the Committee of the Privy Council to whom this matter was referred.
The minister submits that it may be assumed that grain and other products will naturally seek their markets by the cheapest routes and therefore the method to obtain the object desired should be to make the Canadian routes cheaper and more convenient than competing routes.
It would be an insult_ to the intelligence of the House and of the people of Canada to say that in anything that has fallen from the lips of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, or in any argument which has been presented by hon. gentlemen opposite in support of the project "which we are considering, there has been the slightest scintilla of information given us as to how the desideratum mentioned by the minister is to be obtained by the government scheme. Has any hon. gentleman opposite attempted to prove, or in sincerity made the statement, that grain can be carried from the grain fields of the west to the Atlantic cheaper by this scheme than by the existing means of transportation ? Is there any person on the opposite side of the House who has had the hardihood to make that statement ? And yet. notwithstanding the fact, the incontrovertible fact, that grain is not carried by all-rail from the prairies of the west to the sea-board, the hon. gentleman and his associates in support of this proposition have declared that this grand transcontinental "railway is the solution of the transportation problem ; and he asks

the people of this country to endorse that proposition. The people of this country will do nothing of the kind, because they are convinced that the solution of the transportation problem, so far as it effects the congestion which occurs from time to time in j the western part of this country, can never be relieved by the construction of a national transcontinental line, involving the expenditure of one hundred million dollars or more, and laying a lasting burden of debt on the shoulders of the people of this country.
But let me read further from this memorandum :
The minister further states that the questions to be considered are complicated and involved, including among the objects to be sought the transportation of western products from place of production to the markets of the world.
What opportunity has been given to the hon. gentleman and his colleagues since this report was brought down or since this minute was adopted in council, to study this complicate and involved subject ? They have no more information to-day than was available on May 27th last, three months ago. And yet, notwithstanding the fact that they lack this information which is essential to a perfect, a sensible, an bonest, and a patriotic solution of this important question, they ask the members of this House and the people of this country to endorse a proposition to which they have given no consideration-for if they had given it consideration they cannot have given all the facts when this document from which I am quoting was brought down to the House. They have given it no consideration since then and they are in no better position to decide intelligently upon the question than they were three months ago when this return was brought down. I shall read another paragraph from this minute :
It is obvious that before any satisfactory conclusion can be reached upon these questions a thorough and comprehensive inquiry should be made.
Has a thorough and comprehensive inquiry been made since the 27th May last ? If so, who has made it 7 If it were essential before any satisfactory conclusion could be reached on the 27th May last that a comprehensive inquiry should be made, how can any bop. gentleman on the other side of the House stand up in his place and declare that this road fromi Winnipeg to the ocean supplies a satisfactory solution of a matter of so much importauce and one involving such a heavy obligation on the part of the people of this country ?
But the minute proceeds :
The minister further states that in making such investigation attention should not be confined to routes and facilities which are at present utilized, but, if necessary, new surveys should be made to determine whether any more economical and satisfactory channels of transportation by land or water can he opened up.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the Minister of Customs what new surveys have been made since the 27th May that have thrown additional light upon the subject and what additional information is in possession of the House ? Has the hon. Minister of Customs, or any one of his colleagues, any more information, the result of surveys that have been mpde, in their possession than they had on the 27th of May last ? Are they in any better position to state to-day what the possibilities of the new' country are than they were then ? Not the slightest. Yet notwithstanding the statements that were contained in this report to Council which was acted upon by the government we are asked to rush blindly into an expenditure of $100,000,000 for the construction of a road which will be of no practical advantage to tlie people ,and which will not relieve the congestion of the west which calls for relief as soon as it can be given. -
Further the minute states :
Diversion of Canadian products through eastern outlets to Boston. Portland and other United States ports, should he investigated, and the best and most economical method used by our competitors should be carefully studied and reported upon.
Has that been done ? Not a bit of it. Not a single report has been made, not a moment's investigation has been given to the diversion of Canadian trade through eastern outlets to Boston, Portland and other United States ports, and yet we are asked to go it blind and to accept the proposition which has been laid before us in the dying hours of this session and involve the country in tbe construction of tlie line from Moncton to Winnipeg which has never been asked for by the people of the maritime provinces, by the people of Quebec or of Ontario, and which is repudiated by the people of Manitoba.
The minute also states :
The minister further recommends that such scientific and professional assistance as the members of the commission may decide upon shall he employed.
What professional or scientific assistance has been called to the aid of the ministry to enable them to reach a conclusion such as that which they have presented to the House ? What information has been obtained by them since that report was made in May that places them in a better position than they were in then to advise the House and the country as to what course should be adopted to reach a satisfactory solution of this problem ? I would ask the lion. Minister of Customs if he has some light on this subject which he did not have then that has caused him to change his views and why he has become such "an ardent supporter of this scheme, which he looked at askance, during the last two or three weeks


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Who told you that 7


Mr.   CLARICE@: A great many stories of that kind have been repeated from time to time.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Have there ?


Mr.   CLARICE@: I am sure there must be some foundation for them or they would not come from the quarters they came from.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Does the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) profess to deny the statement ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Deny what ?	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: That he was opposed to this scheme at the outset ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am certainly in favour of it. I think I spoke in favour of it to-day.


Mr.   CLARICE@: This is not the first occasion upon which sudden conversions have been made. I would be very sorry to be in the position of doing the hon. Minister of Customs an injustice. It was current talk about the lobbies that the hon. minister was not in favour of the scheme of constructing another line from Moncton to Winnipeg and that he gave the scheme looks that were askance until quite recently. Does the hon. minister state that I am misrepresenting the position he took ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I would like the hon. gentleman to state the source of his rumour. If the hon. gentleman is not able to give his authority then he must be responsible for it himself. Now, does he mean to say that I was opposed to this scheme ?


Mr.   CLARICE@: I have given the hon. gentleman an opportunity of denying the statement made again and again.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Make the charge.


Mr.   CLARICE@: And he has not availed himself of it. Now, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Let me say that while the hon. gentleman is not willing to assume the responsibility but to give currency to vague rumours that I deny the truth of the rumours which he says exist.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he denies having spoken against this proposition or having spoken disparagingly of it ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That I have spoken disparagingly of it ?


Mr.   CLARICE@: Yes.
The MINISTER of CUSTOMS. Certainly, I deny it.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Of course, I must accept the statement of the hon. minister.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We are not dealing in rumours any more.


Mr.   CLARICE@: The hon. Minister of Customs called to time very harshly the Manufacturers' Association because of some action which they took that he thought was ill-advised. Action was taken because of the interpretation that has been placed upon clause 17 of the contract which hon. gentlemen opposite have made with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The hon. gentleman thinks that the manufacturers have needlessly alarmed themselves, but if the clause had been worded as it should have been worded, and if the clause had not been so constructed as to give ground for the opinions which have been expressed on this side of the House the manufacturers would not have been alarmed ; but I am satisfied that the interpretation put upon the clause by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr.' Borden, Halifax), by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), who was buttressed by the opinion of one of the most eminent lawyers in this province, and by the opinion of" the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler) who is an eminent lawyer in the province of New Brunswick, is the right interpretation, and that the interpretation that the hon. minister put upon it this afternoon is incorrect. The hon. gentleman said that partisan feelings must not be permitted to actuate the manufacturers. He Said that they must be absolutely non-political. Surely the hon. minister would not argue that if their construction of section 17 was correct, in a matter of so much importance to them, they were going out of their way in demanding at the earliest possible moment an explanation from the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as to the proper interpretation to be put upon this clause ? But when the hon. gentleman in a half threatening way referred to the manufacturers of this country I was reminded of the time a few years ago when some of his associates were coquetting with the manufacturers, were making pledges to them, not asking that they should abstain from any party political action, but, that they should do their best to help hon. gentlemen opposite in 1S96, and again in 1900, to secure a renewal of office from the .people. The hon. gentleman's colleagues and associates did not hesitate to promise to them an amelioration of their condition and an increased tariff if only they could secure the support of the manufacturers for the policy which hon. gentlemen opposite advocated.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-NOTICE OF AMENDMENT.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: With the permission of .my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke), before he resumes his speech, I would like to state to the House that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has been confined to his bed through illness since last Friday evening. He has requested me to give notice of an amendment whicli he will move on the second reading of the resolution now under the consideration of the House, or, if he is unable to be present then, at the earliest possible opportunity. In view of what has been said by the Minister of Customs, I may say that this amendment had been prepared by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition for some days ; and he was only waiting a favourable opportunity to present it to this House. The amendment is as follows :
1.	That it is not expedient to ratify the agreement set forth in the schedule to the Bill now before this House entitled An Act respecting the Construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.
2.	That the government has failed to lay before the House such information as would justify parliament in committing the country to the agreement as a whole and especially to that portion of the agreement which provides for the construction of nearly nineteen hundred miles of railway constituting the eastern section of the railway therein mentioned.
3.	That the government in declaring its policy in the speech from the Throne at the opening of the present session gave a direct and specific pledge that it would immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the whole question of transportation and terminal facilities.
4.	That in pursuance of this pledge the government on the 19th day of May, 1903, by an Order in Council touching the questions affecting transportation in Canada further declared its policy in the following words :-
The questions to be considered are complicated and involved, including among the objects to be sought the transportation of western products from place of production to the markets of the world.
This involves the consideration of their transportation :-
From place of production to Canadian seaports.
From place of production to the western ports to Lake Superior.
From the western ports of Lake Superior to Canadian seaports.
From Canadian seaports to Europe.
From place of production through Canadian ports on the Pacific.
As it affects the products of the eastern provinces of Canada it involves their movement:-
To the seaports.
From the seaports to Europe.
It is obvious that before any satisfactory conclusion can be reached upon these questions a thorough and comprehensive inquiry should be made regarding :-
The conditions of original shipment and the possibilities of improvement in the conditions surrounding such shipments.
The storage requirements of lake, river and ocean ports.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The harbour facilities of the inland lakes, rivers and Atlantic and Pacific ports.
The conditions with regard to the navigation of the St. Lawrence route, and, generally any improvement, enlargements, or other matters affecting the more economical and satisfactory uses of any Canadian channel of transportation by land or water.
In making any such investigation attention should not be confined to routes and facilities which are at present utilized but, if necessary, new surveys should be made to determine whether any more economical and satisfactory channels of transportation by land or water can be opened up.
The forces operating against the attainment of all Canadian transport, namely : -
Competition by United States railways ;
Competition by United States vessels from Lake Superior ports ; diversion of Canadian products through eastern outlets to Boston, Portland and other United States ports, should be investigated, and the best and most economical methods used Dy our competitors should be carefully studied and reported upon.
In these circumstances it involves upon the Dominion government to consider and adopt the best possible means of promoting such measures as may enable Canada to control the transportation of its own products, and it is thought that the most efficient method of conducting such an inquiry and obtaining the required information is by means of a commission of competent and experienced experts.
5.	That no such inquiry or investigation has been conducted or held and the ' required information ' referred to in the Order in Council above quoted has not been obtained or laid before this House.
6.	That this House is of opinion that the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway should continue to be owned and operated by the government of Canada.
7.	That the government system of railways should be developed and improved in the province of Quebec and in the maritime provinces and should also be extended from Montreal westward to such point or points as will enable it to transport to eastern Canada and to our national ports on the St. Lawrence and on the Atlantic the rapidly increasing products of our great western country.
8.	That by-
(a.) Developing and extending the government system of railways either by the construction of new lines, or sections of railway, or by acquiring and improving existing lines of railway ;
(b.) Securing under government control anl direction, or w'here expedient under government ownership, common haulage or running facilities in sections where one railway can usefully accommodate several systems :
(c.) Giving, if and w'here necessary, material aid by way of guarantee or otherwise, to rail-wav construction in the great west, and to colonization railways in the older provinces ;
(d.) Enlarging and improving our canal sys-em, developing our magnificent lake and river routes and thoroughly equipping our national ports on .the great lakes, the St. Lawrence and tho Atlantic seaboard ;
(e.) Perfecting a system of elevator warehousing, and creating free terminal facilities, and.
(f.) Securing absolute and thorough control of rates in consideration for assistance thus given.
We would open up new territories, provide for our products the best and cheapest trans-

port to the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards, connect without delay the great railway systems of the east and the west, relieve any threatened congestion of traffic and secure the transportation of our products through Canadian channels while at the same time we would stimulate and promote interprovincial trade between the various communities by whom the cost of such national undertakings must necessarily be mainly borne.
9.	That the management of government railways and of all railways under the control or direction of the government should be freed from party political control, influence and interference.
10.	That for the purpose of accomplishing these results the government in accordance with the policy wisely laid down in the Order in Council above recited, should avail itself of the best expert advice and assistance before seek ing to commit the country to expenditure upon any national transportation scheme or project.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I was very glad to give way to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) so that lie might have an opportunity of presenting to this House the resolution which the leader of the opposition intends to move at the earliest possible moment. That resolution crystallizes the views and desires of lion, gentlemen on this side of tlie House as to an effective solution of this transportation problem. The resolution which has been presented is a most effective answer to the statement made by the Minister of Customs this afternoon as to the unwillingness of lion, gentlemen on this side to place themselves on record, and to present in some concrete form a counter proposition to that made by the government.
When you left the Chair at six o'clock, Sir. Speaker, I was pointing out that the Minister of Customs had lectured the manufacturers of Canada for exhibiting, as he said, party bias, in that they had asked for an interpretation of clause 17 of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway contract. The minister thought that the members of the Slanufacturers' Association were acting as political partisans, because, for the time being, they accepted the opinion presented from this side of the House as to the real meaning of clause 17, and as to the effect it would have upon the materials and supplies which would lie required, not only_ for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, but also for the betterment of the road during the 50 years it would be under lease. Let me point out to the Minister of Customs that the manufacturers took the only course they could legitimately take. It meant no disrespect to lion, gentlemen opposite, and in that view the remarks of the Minister of Customs were neither well-timed nor called for. The manufacturers of this country acted within their right. They had a perfect right to ask for an explanation at the earliest moment of the real meaning of clause 17. I repeat, Sir, what I said before you left tlie Chair at six o'clock, that if the necessary care had been taken in the drafting of that clause, and if it were less ambiguous than it is, then neither the manufacturers nor anybody else would have had any reasonable doubt in their minds as to what the true and real intent of that clause is.
But while with one breath the hou. Minister of Customs criticised the action of the manufacturers, charging them with being political partisans, and with acting in a partisan manner, in the very next breath he appealed to them that if they took any action or gave expression to any opinion respecting the project now before the House, they should have accepted the proposition of tlie government rather than that offered by tlie lion, leader of the opposition in the address which he made on this matter a few days ago. And what was the reason given by the hon. Minister of Customs why the manufacturers should accept tlie proposition of the government rather than that of the opposition ? The reason was, he said, that the government intended to build roads while the opposition intended to buy roads; or, in other words, that the proposition of tlie government involved an enormous expenditure of money, and that therefore tlie manufacturers of this country, whether they approved of that expenditure or not, should give the proposition which involved that expenditure their hearty support. The hon. minister was appealing to the selfishness shall I say-to the cupidity of the manufacturers; and he asked them to accept the scheme of the government rather than that of the opposition, no matter what effect that expenditure might have on the future of this country. Would it have been patriotic or wise or prudent on the part of tlie manufacturers of this country, or on the part of any other class of citizens, to approve of a proposition, merely because it involved a large expenditure of money, if they were not at the same time satisfied that the expenditure was judicious, and would result in permanent good to the country ? That was the principal reason given by the hon. minister why the manufacturers should have become partisan and should have accepted the proposition of the government. If, as we contend on this side of file House, the enormous expenditure which the government propose to incur is not warranted, if as we believe it is an unwise and foolish expenditure, notwithstanding the fact that that expenditure may for a time promote good times and give employment to a large number of people, the result will not be of permanent benefit to the country, but rather the reverse; for a reaction will take place, and the burden of tlie repayment of the large sum involved in .carrying out the government's proposition will rest on the shoulders of the manufacturers, the artisans and the farmers of this country, and will be a serious injury to them instead of being a permanent advantage. But, Sir, if the expenditure of a large sum of money is the only or the chief reason why tlie manufacturers and all other people

living in the Dominion of Canada should support the government scheme, may I not point out that if the Grand Trunk Railway had been permitted to carry out their scheme as it was originally presented to the people of Canada, the carrying out of that scheme would have involved the expenditure of a very large sum of money-a sum of money that would have been provided, not by pledging the credit of the people of Canada, not by adding largely to the burden of debt which now rests on the shoulders of the people of Canada, but by private enterprise-by tlie new Grand Trunk Company and those associated in the enterprise of extending their system into Manitoba and the North-west Territories. What was the tirst information the people of Canada received as to the intention of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to enlarge the sphere of their operations and to extend them into Manitoba and the North-west Territories ? The original proposition was different from the one we are now discuss1 ing in this important fact, that the present scheme involves practically the construction of another trunk line, duplicating the present Grand Trunk system from the city of Quebec to its western terminus in the province of Ontario, while the Grand Trunk scheme ns originally presented contemplated what ? Mr. Hays' declaration made in the city of Montreal on the 24th November was to the following effect:
This company is now prepared to go right ahead with a railroad extending from North Bay or Gravenhurst on our present line through that portion of northern Ontario, familiarly known as New Ontario, through Manitoba to either Bute Inlet or Port Simpson.
* The road will be of the most modern and up-to-date character for the handling of both freight and passenger business-in fact, the road will be of the highest standard in every respect.
No one who has been studying the wonderful developments that have taken place in the North-west during the past few years can fail to be deeply impressed with the growth of this extensive and rich territory ; and our directors feel that in view of the apparent need of additional railway facilities, and in order to guarantee the present Grand Trunk system, direct connection with that very important and growing section of Canada, the only wise policy is to take active steps towards this extension.
We are entrenched in the central portion of Ontario, the manufacturing district ; but when it comes to taking goods to the west, we only get the haul as far as North Bay. Under the circumstances, it has been felt that further development was necessary, and hence the present scheme.
That was the statement made by Mr. Hays, the general manager of the Grand Trunk system, a gentleman to whom my hon. friend the Minister of Customs paid a very high tribute because of his great executive ability and bis experience as the manager of a great railway system; in fact, the hon. gentleman looked upon him as possibly the ablest railway man on the con-Mr. CLARKE.
tinent of America. Mr. Hays was induced to enter into this scheme, not for the purpose of duplicating the Grand Trunk line for nearly 1,000 miles, but rather for the purpose of extending the present Grand Trunk system, which has its ramifications iu every industrial centre of Quebec and Ontario, from its western terminus at Gravenhurst or North Bay into Manitoba and the Territories-an altogether different proposition from that of the Prime Minister oil which this discussion is based. The opinion of Mr. Hays was buttressed by that of Mr. Morse, Vice-President of the Grand Trunk Railway, associated with Mr. Hays in the management of the Grand Trunk Railway. What did lie say ? At Winnipeg, interviewed by the correspondent of the Toronto ' Globe,' he said that they would begin at once; that there was to be no delay so far as the Grand Trunk was concerned ; that the work was to proceed as soon as they obtained legislation in this parliament to enable them to extend their system into Manitoba and the North-west.
We are going to build at once	What is
more important is the fact that we are not a new company. . . . Having connection through the best manufacturing districts in the east and to the Atlantic sea-board, that your people are most anxious to reach, you can see how it will benefit the west. On the one hand, is direct connection with manufactories that can supply the needs of houses in the west ; on the other is your direct line back to the sea-board. Of course, what we look to is the magnificent opportunity of opening up and developing one of the greatest stretches of country under heaven. I refer to that boundless tract of land which lies to the north-west of you.
The ' Canada Gazette ' corroborated exactly the views I have presented as emanating from Mr. Hays and Mr. Morse. The notice given in the ' Canada Gazette ' on the 20tli December last sought for incorporation for the new company-what for '! To extend the present Grand Trunk system from its present northern terminus at Gravenhurst or North Bay to Manitoba and the west; and the announcement made in the official organ of the government in the province of Ontario, the Toronto ' Globe,' reiterated and confirmed the opinions which I am now giving. The ' Globe ' said :
In view of the apparent need of additional railway facilities, and in order to guarantee to the present Grand Trunk system direct connection with that very important and growing section of Canada (the North-west), the only wise policy is to take active steps toward an extension in that direction which will be commenced as soon as the necessary legislation has been obtained from the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask why the Grand Trunk Company were not permitted to proceed with their proposition ? What reason has been advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite why the scheme of the Grand Trunk Company was interfered with? They were prepared to proceed at once with

the construction of their railway to Manitoba and the territories, and they were prepared to proceed with that work without asking for more than the ordinary assistance which has been given from time to time by this parliament to railways in the various provinces to enable these railways to open up new portions of -the country.
I.ask why was the company forced to deprive the two principal provinces of the Dominion, Ontario and Quebec, of that direct connection with the territories ? The Grand Trunk Railway Company was prepared at once to proceed with the construction of that line. They would have built more than one thousand miles through that practically unknown territory where construction is most difficult, and they would have done that upon only the ordinary assistance or bonuses per mile from the government of this country. But what intervened ? What arose to prevent the construction of the proposed new line, which was to be an extension of the Grand Trunk Railway ? In March last, the government declared that they were going to have a commission to examine into the whole transportation business, but on the 30th of July last, they harnessed an impracticable allrail scheme on to a practicable rail and water scheme. That scheme involved the expenditure of a very large sum of money. The organ of the Liberal party in Ontario, the Toronto ' Globe,' estimated the expenditure at $100,000,000. The 'Globe' pointed out that that expenditure would mean a great deal for all parts of Canada, and undoubtedly it would ; but the ' Globe ' further said that it would not approve the expenditure of that very large sum unless it felt satisfied it would be a wise expenditure, and that those who invested their money in the enterprise would receive a reasonable return at once. This is what the ' Globe ' said :
_ The spending of $100,000,000 in the constructing ot the Grand Trunk Railway transcontinental system means much for all Canada. . . .'We should, however, deprecate the spending of such a vast sum. . . were we not absolutely convinced that the capital invested in the Grand Trunk Railway continental system, as Mr. Hays has outlined it, will pay handsome returns even before the road is built.
I believe that that statement is correct, and that had the Grand Trunk Railway Company been permitted to go on with its own scheme and g.et connection at the earliest possible moment with Manitoba and the territories, that scheme would have commended itself to the judgment of the people of Canada, and to capitalists outside of Canada, and the necessary money could easily have been raised to enable the Grand Trunk Railway to finance it; but for some inexplicable reason not given so far by any hon. gentleman opposite, the government, which in last March declared that this Whole transportation question was to be
referred to a commission, brought down on the 30th of July, after we had been five months in session, a new scheme which involved the construction of 1,800 miles of road by the government, and an expenditure anywhere from $80,000,000 to $100,000,000, and after the work had been constructed and that expenditure made, the whole railway was to be handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to operate during seven years without paying a farthing of interest, during three years longer without paying interest unless it earned it, and during the balance of the term of fifty years on paying three per cent interest on the cost of construction. I am utterly at a loss to understand why the government interfered in the proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway and insisted on building a road from Moncton to Winnipeg, and then handing it over to that company. It is a most extraordinary proposition, and the government have not yet made the explanations necessary to a proper understanding of a transaction of such vital importance.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister gave us some reasons with which I propose to deal at a later stage. But we have these facts patent:	The Grand Trunk Railway
were willing, of their own motion, to take the necessary steps to relieve any congestion that might exist in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and the government, instead of aiding the Grand Trunk Railway, are rather putting obstacles in their way. It is not argued strongly, to say the least, by hon. gentlemen opposite that the construction of a railway from Moncton to Winnipeg would relieve the congestion that exists in the North-west. It is not argued by any hon. gentleman opposite that relief can be given by the scheme before us in less than from six to ten years ; but that relief which the west demanded, the proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway in November last would give much more effectively and sooner than it can possibly be given by the proposition under consideration.
My hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) did my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island and myself, and some others the honour of quoting some statements which we made in the west, when up there last fall looking over that magnificent country. I am sure if what the hon. gentleman read to us this afternoon reflected the statements and sentiments to which we gave utterance during our visit to Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia, it may truthfully be said that we do not belong to the ' Little Canada ' party. We have as much faith in the future of that country as any hon. gentleman opposite can possibly have. And why should we not ? The party with which we are identified and associated is the party which, first in Canada appreciated the great

future of our country. It was the old chieftain who led that party in the olden days who proposed the legislation which procured for us that great western land and made it a part of this Dominion. It was the old chieftain and the Conservative party at his back who connected that great western country with the older provinces of the Dominion ; and notwithstanding the opposition offered by the right hon. gentleman's colleagues and himself, the great Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed at that time at the general expense of the people of Canada. Why ? Because of the abiding faith which the Conservative party had in the destinies of the country, because they were not afraid to pledge their faith by making large expenditures in order that that great North-west might be opened up and made easy of settlement to our kith and kin from across the Atlantic. We, therefore, would be belying the records of the Conservative party if, when we had the opportunity in company with our leader, whose absence we regret so much this evening, we did not reiterate those expressions of faitli and confidence and hope in the future which we- wer,e taught by the chieftains of the Conservative party in days gone by. But notwithstanding our optimistic views- -and I have seen no reason to change those views since I came back last November-I failed to see that there was any demand in that western country, or in any other part of the Dominion, 'for another transcontinental line, if I understand the meaning of that term. By transcontinental line, I mean a line extending from ocean to ocean ; and I make the statement, with the greatest possible respect for the Minister of Customs, that there was no demand from the west or the east or the centre of Canada for another transcontinental road such as we had described to us in such eloquent terms by my hon. friend this afternoon. What the people of the west wanted then, what they want now, is increased railway facilities, but that does not necessarily involve the construction of another transcontinental line extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. What was being done when we were there last fall ? We found that railway development was proceeding apace. We found that the Mackenzie & Mann system was being extended east and west and north ; that the Canadian Pacific Railway was making great extensions to its system throughout Manitoba and the territories. We found railway development going on expeditiously with the objec t of relieving the congestion and providing for future development.
The government could not have contemplated, in March last, that this transcontinental railway was going on, for they certainly made no announcement of it. At the very least, they did not take the public into their confidence. My hon. friend' the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mu-Mr. CLARKE.
lock)-notwithstanding the fact that last March the hon. gentleman and his colleagues placed in the mouth of the Governor General a statement to the effect that this transportation question was to be referred to a commission for satisfactory solution-in speaking the other night, said : 'It took us a year to evolve our modest proposition.' Weil, I am bound to accept the statement of tlie hon. Postmaster General, made from his place in this House. But I must say that I cannot reconcile that statement with tlie statement made in the speech from the Throne or with the actions of the government since that sj>eecli was made on the 12th of March last. Was it the object of the government to deceive the country by putting these words into His Excellency's mouth ? I should hope not. If the government were working on this transportation scheme, if they thought that having an all-rail line from Moncton to the Pacific coast would be a solution of the difficulty, it was ridiculous to say that this was an involved and intricate matter, one that they could not deal with, and therefore proposed to appoint a commission to investigate and report upon. But this commission has not been given an opportunity to deal with it. And if the government have been working at this problem, working energetically and sedulously, for the last twelve months, what have they done? Are we to judge of their business capacity by what they have discovered and evolved in that twelve months ? What information have they laid before us as a result of their twelve months' labour? What have they done to demonstrate that they were working faithfully and zealously to solve this problem ? What business acumen have they displayed, after devoting twelve months to this question, in the scheme brought down to this House? They have not even a plan to present. They have no survey. They cannot tell us what the route of the proposed new line is to bo. We must take everything for granted. They tell us that they have mountains of information. Their information has not been disclosed by anything that they' have presented to the House; and if they have mountains of Information, they have kept it all to themselves. All the information vouchsafed to us is that presented by the right, hon Prime Minister, consisting of reports made by surveying parties who went up from the province of Ontario looking for timber, and also some musty reports taken out of the library.- The information contained in the reports of the Ontario surveyors is three years old, and the information contained in the reports from the library is twenty years old. The government might have obtained that information. not in twelve months, but in twenty-four hours, if they had decided to look for it. But, Sir, after twelve months' labour on tins scheme in endeavouring to evolve a solution of the transportation question,

tliey bring down to us a scheme without knowing witliin ten or even twenty millions what the carrying out of it will cost; without having the slightest idea of where the road is to run; without having the slightest information as to the character of country through which the road is to pass; without having the slightest information as to the engineering difficulties they will have to encounter before they can complete the work of constructing the road from east to west.
The Prime Minister has given us three reasons for the adoption of this scheme. And, if I have accurately read, and if I understand his speech, his reasons are : First, to jjrovide immediate means whereby the products of the west may find an exit to the east at the least possible cost; second, to provide a transcontinental line all on Canadian soil; and, third, for fear that the bonding privilege-* privilege,' mark you -should be taken from us by our American neighbours, and to be independent of them should such a contingency arise-in other words, to be prepared for the abrogation of that so-called privilege. These reasons of the Prime Minister are evidently given seriously. As to the first, the Grand Trunk itself would have provided for a speedier, cheaper and more direct solution of the problem than does this scheme presented by the Prime Minister. The Grand Trunk could have reached Manitoba and relieved the congestion there far sooner than can be done by the government's proposed line. The second reason, that we desire a transcontinental line every mile of it on Canadian territory, must have been given as a result of an oversight. Because, as I pointed out this afternoon, the people of Canada constructed the Intercolonial Railway from Halifax and Moncton to Montreal, and they also constructed the Canadian Pacific Railway from Montreal to Vancouver. So, while the right hon. gentleman was giving this as a reason, that, in order to be independent of our neighbours, we should have a transcontinental line every mile on Canadian territory, thanks to the patriotism, thanks to the willing sacrifices of the Canadian people to their national ideals, thanks to their desire to be independent commercially of the Americans, we have had just such a line in existence for the last ten or fifteen years.
Well, Sir. as to this bonding privilege. That was given as the third reason. It is said that we fear that the bonding privilege, so-called, might be abrogated, and therefore we must build this all-rail, all-Canadian line. Sir, we could and would have got along very comfortably for some years past, even if the bonding privilege had been abolished. And I think that, if it had been abolished, instead of being a source of ill and a source of loss to the country its.abolition would have redounded very substantially to the interest of the Intercolonial and for our maritime provinces. The bonding privilege is a venerable bugaboo, which has been made to do duty on many previous occasions. But it is a ghost that has been raised once too often. It was brought from its resting place on the occasion of the notorious Yukon deal. We were told, when that scheme was before us several years ago, that if we did not build that Yukon Railway, which hon. gentlemen opposite proposed, we should be deprived of the bonding privilege and our products would be shut out of the Yukon, or compelled to pay duty in crossing American territory. But parliament, on that occasion, did not take much stock in the argument that the bonding privilege might be abrogated, and the sending of our goods into the Yukon so interfered with. Parliament did not accept the proposition of the government. Notwithstanding that, the bonding privilege is exactly as it>
was regarding our goods going through Skag-way and other points to the Yukon, and all the way down along the border to the city of Portland, Maine. Why ? Simply because the Americans, our neighbours, are as much advantaged by the bonding privilege, aye, and more so, than are the Canadian people. That is the reason, and the only reason, why the bonding privilege has not been taken away from us. Well, Sir, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) declared in his speecli this afternoon that the construction of this transcontinental railway will give immediate and permanent relief to Manitoba and the Northwest, and that it will be a substantial benefit to every province in the Dominion. I listened very attentively to what my hon. friend said respecting the advantages that the provinces of Quebec and Ontario would gain from the construction of this transcontinental road, and-I say it with the greatest possible respect-after the hon. gentleman had left that part of his argument, I felt that I was not much wiser than I had been before the hon. gentleman had spoken. The Grand Trunk proposition as originally made by that company would have placed every mile of the company's system in Quebec and Ontario in direct communication with its extension from North Bay. If the present transcontinental railway is built, what will be the result? The great centres of population, the great industrial centres, in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, will be separated by at least two hundred miles from the new transcontinental system; and if they desire to be placed in touch with that system, if they desire to get the advantage of passing the cars containing their products over that system, long branches will have to be constructed from Montreal, Toronto and other centres, in order that the manufacturers and mechanics of these provinces may be brought in touch with this transcontinental system and may derive advantage from the spending of money in its construction. Wliat is the position of Montreal, the great

industrial and commercial centre of Canada? It is the head of ocean navigation as well as the headquarters of the great railway corporations, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railways. It is the gateway of the St. Lawrence, it is the first distributing centre of the Dominion of Canada, it is the great monetary emporium of the Dominion of Canada, and in the construction of this line Montreal will be sidetracked unless a line more than 200 miles in length is constructed from Montreal northward to tap this new line on its way from Quebec city. The Grand Trunk Railway, in their original proposition, proposed to use the present Grand Trunk line from Montreal westward by the most direct line, and thus save the expense of handling and the great distance which will be lost by the adoption of the scheme proposed by the right hon. gentleman. Every industrial centre in the province of Quebec, except the old historical city of' Quebec and the industrial centres east of it, will be in exactly the same position as Montreal. The products of every industrial centre in Quebec will have to go by a roundabout way if this new road is to be used at all, to make connection with the new road 200 or 300 miles north of Montreal.
How is the great industrial province of Ontario to be benefited, how are its interests beneficially affected by the construction of this road ? The hon. gentleman who preceded me (Hon. Mr. Paterson) has not made this quite clear, and I hope that before the Bill passes its final stage he will give more definite and plainer information as to the benefit Ontario is sure to derive from the construction of this road. My hon. friend twitted the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) because they asked how Ontario was to be benefited by the construction of this road, and he tried to make it appear that they were sectional in their views because they did not at once swallow the scheme. Sir, the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would mean an enormous expenditure in Ontario and Quebec. It would mean the expenditure of $25,000,000 in the province of Ontario ; and surely we who have the honour of representing that province in this House cannot be charged with being sectional because we object to the useless and unnecessary expenditure of $25,000,000 in that province ? We make that objection because we believe and feel that that expenditure is a useless expenditure and that the people of Ontario will have to pay their share of the debt imposed on this country by the construction of this line, but will derive no real, tangible or substantial benefit from it. For seven or eight months in the year, under present conditions, the industrial and commercial centres of Ontario have a cheaper and shorter connection with Mr. CLARKE.
the west than they can possibly obtain by the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific line.
By the existing rail and water route the distance between Toronto and Winnipeg is 1,085 miles, 535 miles by rail and 555 miles by water.
By the same route the distance from Hamilton to Winnipeg is 1,087 miles, 537 miles by rail and 550 miles by water.
The distance by the same route from London to Winnipeg is 1,116 miles, 566 miles by rail, 550 by water.
Let me emphasize this fact, that this table of distances applies with equal force to the products of the industrial cities and towns surrounding the industrial centres which I have named.
Xow let us examine the distance of the proposed new line from the Ontario cities. From Toronto it will be 425 miles north to the junction at Lake Abitibi with the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific ; and from the great industrial city of Hamilton, it will be 460 miles, and from the city of London no less than 515 miles. Thus before the products of these industrial centres and the hives of industry around them can make connection with this new Grand Trunk Pacific line they will have a rail haul in the case of Toronto of 425 miles, in the case of Hamilton of 460 miles, in the case of London of 515 miles ; and yet my hon. friend the Minister of Customs saw nothing but good for the province of Ontario in this scheme.
But when we get to Lake Abitibi, how far are we from Winnipeg ? We are no less than 940 miles from Winnipeg after having gone north from Toronto 425 miles. That is the only advantage we can possibly get by the construction of this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme.
By the Grand Trunk Pacific route then the distances to Winnipeg will be as follows :
Miles.
From Toronto	1,365
From Hamilton	1,400
From London	1,455
While by the present all-rail route the distances to Winnipeg are much shorter. They are as follows :
Miles.
Toronto to Winnipeg	1,285
Hamilton to Winnipeg	1,320
London to Winnipeg	1,375
Sir, this road will be 100 miles longer if tlie government's present scheme is insisted upon than the present all-rail communication with the west, or than the connection we can get, under the proposition made by the leader of the opposition, both by the Grand Trunk Railway and the Intercolonial Railway. The existing lake and rail route is almost 300 miles shorter than the proposed, route of the government, and it is absurd to say that for seven or eight months in the year the industrial centres of Ontario

would use this new route to send tlieir output to the west, when they have a hike and rail route 300 miles shorter. Of what earthly use then, may I ask the Minister of Customs, will this new road he in extending the advantages of cheap transportation to the industrial centres of the province of Ontario ?
Now, one word about the Quebec section. The distance by the Canadian Pacific Railway from Montreal to Winnipeg is 1,424 miles, and by the Grand Trunk Pacific line it cannot be less than 1,475 or 1,500 miles. The new route on which the .government are proposing to build will be practically 100 miles longer than the present all-rail route.
The Grand Trunk Railway has now 3,142 miles of track in Ontario and Quebec, and by the scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition all of this great mileage is placed in immediate and direct communication with Winnipeg and with the west. Every mile of this 3,142 miles is dissociated by the proposition of the government from the new scheme, and will have to obtain access to the west if at all by th.e roundabout methods that I have indicated of connecting this system with the proposed new system. That is to say, by branches from Toronto to the new line 425 miles long, and from Montreal to the new line, 200 miles long. These great branches will have to be constructed before either the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario will derive any advantage from the proposition which hon. gentlemen opposite have laid before us.
Sir, if the government had not imposed upon the country the obligation of building this line from Quebec to Winnipeg, what might have been done with the money it will cost ? The scheme which the leader of the opposition has presented to this House could have been, and would have been, fully carried out, if opportunity had been afforded him to do it. Access to Georgian bay and the west would have been obtained for the Intercolonial; the Grand Trunk would have got a right of way, a right of user, from its present north-western terminus over the Canadian Pacific Railway to Winnipeg ; the Mackenzie & Mann system, which now has its eastern terminus at Port Arthur, would have been brought down to Sudbury and Ontario. Thus, as the net result of the adoption of the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition in place of that of the government. four trunk lines would be brought into connection with the vvest instead of two trunk lines, as proposed in the scheme of the right hon. gentleman.
Then let us take the section of the route from Quebec to Moncton and see what is the situation. The government's proposal is for the construction of another line at a cost of $15,000,000. What will be the result of the expenditure of that vast sum of money ? What earthly good will it do ? It will not open up a tract of country of which very much use can be made in the way of settlement and agriculture ; and it may do a great deal of damage to the forests in that country. And what will be its effect on the Intercolonial ? AVe now have the Intercolonial from Moncton to Quebec, or Levis, which is just across the river ; and will the construction of this road be of any benefit to the Intercolonial ?
If the money that is to be expended upon the branch from Quebec to Moncton were saved to the country the present Intercolonial Railway might be shortened, if it could be profitably shortened, and every harbour on the Atlantic coast worthy the name as well as the harbours of Montreal and Quebec could be efficiently and properly equipped to do all the business that will offer for many years to come. The proposition of the government involves an expenditure of $15,000,000 to construct another line between Quebec and Moncton, when according to a statement made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), and his statement has not been challenged by any hon. gentleman opposite, the Intercolonial Railway can now do four times the business that it is able to secure and do it satisfactorily and efficiently. How can any hon. gentleman opposite advocate, how can he support a proposition to parallel the Intercolonial Railway for 400 miles, a railway in which the people have invested $70,000,000, by another railway, when the paralleling of that road would take all the through business whicli the Intercolonial Railway now handles, make it practically a local line and perpetuate the deficits which the people of Canada have been obliged to pay year after year for its operation ? I cannot for the life of me understand, and I have tried to give this matter the very best possible consideration, why the government is persisting and does persist in committing itself to this Quebec-Moncton branch. There is no demand from the maritime provinces for the construction of a trunk line through them. If it is necessary to have a new trunk line why not utilize the Intercolonial Railway from LOvis to Moncton arid include it in the scheme of a transcontinental road. As the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals pointed out, no better grades or as good grades can be found for any other road that will be shorter than the Intercolonial Railway, by the route which these hon. gentlemen propose to adopt ; and for this reason and for the reason that the Intercolonial Railway is only partially employed, while it is capable of doing a great deal more business, I cannot understand why the government will persist in committing the people of Canada to this needless, this unnecessary, this hurtful expenditure of $15,000,000, which might be put to much better use in making a more satisfactory solution of this transportation question than can possibly be made of it if the government persist in this unwise and injudicious expenditure.

Hon. gentlemen opposite in tlie course of this debate have quoted a great many opinions respecting the soundness of their scheme and respecting the wisdom of_ their proposal ; but there were several opinions available which ought to have been valuable to these hon. gentlemen, but which up to the present time they have not given the House the benefit of. My hon. friend from King's, N. B. (Mr. Fowler) drew attention to the fact that the opinion of Sir William Vail Horne had not been given as to the wisdom or as to the practicability of the scheme which the government have presented to us. Sir Wm. Van Horne's great executive ability cannot be challenged, his wide experience is known to the people of Canada from end to end, his authority on railway matters is certainly as high as that of any other man in the Dominon of Canada, aye, on the North American continent, and the appreciation which hon. gentlemen themselves had of that gentleman's ability is best shown by the fact that when they announced that they would appoint a commission to deal with this transportation problem, to advise them as to its solution, Sir Win. Van Horne was named as one of the commissioners, and so great a respect had hon. gentlemen opposite for that gentleman, that they invited him to be the chairman of their commission. It is a wonder under these circumstances, that, when these hon. gentlemen could have obtained his opinion, they did not ask Sir Wm. Van Horne what he thought of this scheme before they had committed themselves and the country to it. Let me quote the opinion of Sir Wm. Van Horne in reference to this scheme-an opinion which could have been obtained by hon. gentlemen opposite as it is available for them :
The Canadian Pacific Railway, the Graud Trunk Pacific Railway, or any other all-Canadian route, will never voluntarily carry a carload of wheat by the all-railway route around the great lakes to an eastern Canadian port for shipment abroad, for the simple reason that it will never pay any road to do so. Nor will the transportation problem in the west ever he solved by the construction of an all-Canadian route from coast to coast.
That opinion is given in unequivocal language. Every person who reads it knows exactly what it means. It means that as a solution of the transportation problem in the west this road is doomed to failure, that it cannot solve the problem ; and yet in the face of this opinion which was given a month or two months ago, the government persist in going on with this scheme with the advice of Sir Wm. Van Horne before their eyes. There is another opinion which hon. gentlemen had available and which they might have quoted if they desired to give the House Hie information upon this question which is available. It is the opinion of the gentleman who occupies the position of Premier of the greatest wheat growing province in the Dominion Mr. CLARKE.
of Canada, a gentleman who has done a great deal to solve the transportation problem in his own province, the province of Manitoba, a gentleman whose services in the solution of the transportation problem have been very highly appreciated by the people of Manitoba, a gentleman who is the railway commissioner of that province, and a gentleman who more than any other man in the province of Manitoba has a right to speak for the people of that province. Mr. Roblin has given his opinion about this transcontinental railway scheme, about the relief which it will afford to the wheat growers of that province, and what does he say ? These opinions, I think, are worthy of being placed on record, because they show how wide of the mark the government have come in the efforts which they have put forth to give some substantial benefit to the people of Manitoba by the solution of this transportation problem. Mr. Roblin says:
I am willing to say, as railroad commissioner of Manitoba, representing, as I think I do, the majority of the people of Manitoba, that there has not yet dawned upon any of us, any use or practical benefit so far as we are able to see in this line, as proposed by Sir Wilfrid I.aurier, other than what any other road would give, in as far as the laying down of its line across our province is concerned.
And further he says :
There is nothing that I have been able to see in the project that will inspire us with the hope that it is going to secure for the people of Manitoba any practical or material benefit, other than what any other fine would confer. Sir Wilfrid Laurier may be more patriotic than I am. I believe he is a loyal, patriotic man, but I want to say that patriotic as we in the west are also, we are not willing to build a railroad with the people's money, and then allow our produce to be forced through a channel for shipment at a loss of five cents a bushel to us. You can understand the farmers would not tolerate it.
The people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories would like to see the Intercolonial Railroad extended from Montreal to some port on Georgian bay, a government road that would act as a regulator of traffic on the other systems. We would like to see yie government undertake to provide free terminal facilities in the way of storage at Parry Sound or some other point on Georgian hay, and provide rolling stock sufficient to move, as shippers might desire, all the shipments that might arrive, and thus guarantee to the farmers of the Northwest that the rate from Parry Sound to Montreal should never be more than the farmers of the western states have to pay from Buffalo to New York. That is the policy that we in the west believe in and we believe It is the policy of the Conservative party of Canada as a whole.
I have taken the opportunity of giving the opinions of two men who are in the best position in Canada, I maintain, to judge as to tlie value of this transcontinental railway scheme which the government proposes, and they both unhesitatingly denounce the proposition, one as being no solution of the transportation problem, and the other as being practically useless to the people of

Manitoba. But, there was another opinion that lion, gentlemen might have quoted if they had desired, an opinion that probably they will attach greater importance to than the opinions of the gentlemen X have just mentioned. I refer to the opinion of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He has given us his opinion on this matter ; in fact he has given us several opinions, but he gave an opinion a short time ago on this very question of transportation. It will be recollected that the hon. gentleman had been pointing out the fact that wheat was being carried from Port Arthur to New York for, from 31 cents to at most 4 cents per bushel in the summer months.


Mr. CHARLTON.: I did not point out any thing of the kind ; it is a mistake.


Mr.   CLARICE@: There is some consolation to the advocates of this transcontinental line in what I am, going to quote from the hon. gentleman :
Of course in the winter we should control to a large extent the transportation of that country.
That is the transportation in the winter between Winnipeg and Quebec.
We should certainly and under all conditions control the transportation of all the products *of the soil and of the forest north of the height of land and between Lake Winnipeg and Quebec. We cannot prevent the diverting of grain through American channels unless we do it in an artificial manner.
Aud that is just what the hon. gentleman and his friends are attempting to do now- they are attempting to divert this grain in an artificial manner although the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) has told ns that it is impossible to do it successfully.
We might do it by export duties and customhouse restrictions which would provoke the
resentment of the North-west, and we must remember in addition to this, that the time is not far distant when the North-west will he the master of the situation. That country is filling up rapidly, that country will demand that it must have access to the best markets it can obtain. The wheat growers of the North-west will not be particular whether they sell to the Minneapolis millers, or the millers at Rat Portage, or the millers in Ontario, or the millers in the eastern states, or the millers in England. What they want is the best market. They want access to that market, they will demand it and they will be entitled to have it.
And yet, after having made this solemn declaration a few months ago, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) now stands up as the chief advocate of a scheme diametrically opposed in its provisions to the views he then announced. Is there any, doubt in the mind of the hon. gentleman that the farmers of the west will not send their wheat by an all-rail route when they can send it more cheaply by the rail and water route ? There cannot be. You ask me, Mr. Speaker, why I quote the opinion of the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) and I will tell you why. It was he who was put forward of all men on that side of the House, to reply to the indictment of the government scheme made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair). It was he -who, after deliberation no doubt, was selected-notwithstanding that he expressed the opinion I have just quoted-as the gentleman who could make the best possible case for the government. He appears to be the wheel horse of the administration ; when the ministerial wagon gets into one of these muskegs the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) is put into the shafts to try and pull it out. He was selected as being probably able to make the best possible presentation of the case, and to argue that what he solemnly declared before his fellow-members in this House of Commons three months ago was impracticable and ridiculous, is just the thing that we want now to solve the transportation problem.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister is with us to-night, and I would like to draw his special attention to a statement which appeared within the last few days in a newspaper which certainly cannot be said to be hostile to the right hon. gentleman. The editor of that paper is a great admirer of the Prime Minister ; he is the biographer of the Prime Minister ; he looks to the right hon. gentleman as his political Gamaliel and he sits at liis feet ; he follows the right hon. gentleman as far as it is possible for any man to follow him ; and yet, after having given Ills approbation to this scheme when it was first proposed ; on consideration, and having a duty to his clieutele in the province of Ontario and throughout the Dominion, the editor ot this newspaper is compelled to utter a warning, and I trust the Prime Minister will pay some attention to it, knowing the source whence it comes. Need I say that I refer

to the editor of the Toronto ' News.' That paper says editorially :
In discussing the scheme, ' The News ' steadily has kept prominent the fact that for the project to have a chance of success the road must attain something closely akin to perfection. That means that the gradients must be as easy as those on the New York Central and the Wabash railways. A convenient standard of excellence is to regard four-tenths of 1 per cent-21 feet to the mile-as our maximum grade. Throughout the discussion ' The News ' has assumed that grades of this nature, together with easy curves, must be obtained. Unless such conditions are realized, the line will be a disappointment.
The importance of this condition is immense. Hopes are not facts. We say that the line ' must ' be so constructed. Nature may reply that it cannot be so constructed.
And, Sir, from tlie information, tlie meagre information we have been able to obtain, we think there is no doubt at all as to what nature will say.
What then ? If, when the line is located, heavy grades are announced, from that moment the prospects of the project will be of the gloomiest.
May I not appeal to my right lion, friend that these words are words of wisdom; that they are words that ought to be pondered over ? They are not written by a political partisan opposed to the right hon. gentleman ; they are written by a warm and personal friend.
If the engineers, after patient searching, after exhausting their ingenuity, are forced to report that steep grades cannot be avoided, the scheme will not be worth trying. The best thing to do then will be to turn to the improvement of the lake and rail route we already possess.
The marked difference that will appeal to the people of Canada, between the policy of the government and the policy advocated from this side of the House is, that thie leader of the opposition says : Turn to the lake and rail routes now ; we know their value, we know what they have done in the past, and our primary duty is to make our present lake and rail routes as effective as possible ; and if, after having done so we find we have money to burn, and that we want to open up vast territories hundreds of miles to the north, then we can enter on the consideration of this transcontinental colonization scheme which the right lion, gentleman and those behind him are presenting to the country.
I do not know, Sir. that I eouid give further or better opinions with regard to the impropriety of going on with that scheme than those I have already quoted. But, probably the hon. members will pardon me if I refer for a few moments to the opinion expressed by a gentleman who was in the best, position to express an opinion about this scheme which his former colleagues have forced upon the House, and which resulted in the ex-Minister of Railways and


Edward Frederick Clarke: Canals leaving the administration. If there is any man in the parliament of Canada qualified by his experience as head of the Railway Department of Canada since 1896 to give a sound opinion with regard to the wisdom or the unwisdom of the scheme of the government, that man is the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. He felt so strongly as to the impropriety, the unwisdom, the fatuous folly of going on with this scheme that he ^severed his connection, regretfully I am sure, with the right hon. leader of the government and his colleagues. He had the courage of his convictions, and was prepared to back them up with sacrifices; and, if rumour speaks truly, his conduct may be pointed to in striking contrast with the conduct of some of his colleagues, who had opinions and convictions, but were not prepared to back them up with any such sacrifice as he made. What is the opinion, Sir, of tlie ex-Minister of Railways and Canals with regard to this scheme ? Why did he oppose it ? Because, in the first place, it destroyed the Intercolonial Railway; because, in the next place, the country had not sufficient data or information upon it; and because the time had not come to involve the country in the enormous burden which the construction and maintenance of this railroad would Impose. These are strong and sound reasons, and they have not yet been satisfactorily disposed of by hon. gentlemen on the other-side of the House. How have the hon. exminister's arguments been answered V By arguments ? No, rather by abuse. Mean insinuation, innuendo and slur have been the answer of hon. gentlemen to the crushing indictment which the ex-minister has made. I am sure that the abuse instead of argument that has been hurled against that hon. gentleman will not tend to elevate the tone of debate in this House or to improve the position of those who have indulged in it before the people of this country.
Sir, we on this side of the House have been charged with applauding the hon. exminister because of the stand he took. Why should we not applaud him ? Why should we not endorse his views if they are in harmony with our own, and if we believe he reached his conclusions after honest, careful search and investigation V Why should we not welcome the spirit of independence and patriotism which he has exhibited, in sacrificing a position of high honour and emolument in order that he might be a free man to oppose a scheme which he thought inimical to the best interests of his country, his province and his constituency ? Hon. gentlemen opposite are prone to point across the sea for examples of parliamentary ethics; but the example which the lion. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has given us is worthy of the traditions of the great land from which we derive our freedom and our parliamentary institutions. When men are prepared to

make suck sacrifices as the kon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals kas made in order to maintain tkeir fidelity to their konest convictions, tkey are wortky of tke approbation and support not only of tkeir erstwhile political opponents, but of every man who believes in konest, straightforward, upright conduct.
How kas tke kon. ex-minister's course been received on tke other side of the House? By a chorus of, shall I say yelps ?-by statements and insinuations unworthy of being uttered on tke floor of this House. I thought to myself, during tke last ten days or two weeks while I have been listening to this discussion, what position would those hon. gentlemen who have been barking at the ex-minister find themselves in if as the result of the negotiations which it is said are now going on between the ex-minister and his former colleagues, the exminister should find himself back again in the cabinet ? Or, if as a result of the deliberations now going on, the scheme so eloquently and forcibly defended by the hon. Minister of Customs this afternoon should be modified substantially in consonance with the views of the ex-minister? Or, if that hon. gentleman should be asked by his former colleagues to accept some position of honour and emolument in the service of the Crown, what position would those hon. gentlemen who have denounced him find themselves in ? Would they still follow him and look up to him as a leading member of the party ? Or would they attribute to him the same base and dishonourable motives which they declare have prompted him in his recent action ? Judging by their words, what are we to think of the political ethics which prevail amongst them ? Before the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals took his departure from the government, he was lauded by those hon. gentlemen as the ablest administrator that ever had control of the railway affairs of this country. The moment he left the administration, he was denounced, bell, book and candle, as a man unworthy of the confidence of any honourable man in the Dominion of Canada. Let me quote some of the things said of the hon. the ex-minister by the gentlemen who have taken part in this debate. My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), with that charity that characterizes his public utterances, said this : There are some expressions in my hon. friend's speech which perhaps indicated something that was not fully revealed, but persons skilful in such business may read between the lines and draw inferences	His position yesterday, lacking as it did that dignity which ought to pertain to the position of a gentleman -who resigns on high patriotic and moral grounds, and the bitterness of his attack, convinced me there is something beneath and beyond the ostensible reason assigned for his leaving the cabinet. . . . Perhaps it would have suited my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways better if he had had the disposal of the contracts for building the road, but I think 324
it will be constructed fully as cheaply under the arrangement arrived at.
This is the insinuation, the innuendo, the mean suggestion which the hon. gentleman makes as to the motives which prompted the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. My hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), said this :
The argument of the ex-Minister of Railways was not a criticism ; it was a bitter attack. It was not reason ; it showed too much temper. In fact, the temper that permeates the whole speech of the ex-minister shows that the true inwardness of his resignation has not been yet revealed to us.
The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell), said :
It was a striking and plausible statement of the case, and was at once picked up by every unthinking critic and every Tory newspaper in the country. With his habitual shiftiness, the hon. gentleman had no sooner got them all committed to this view of the situation than he threw them all overboard.
This is the opinion the hon. member for Hants expressed of the character of the ex-minister. Then the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), said :
History is full of the records of political conversions. ... But for a speedy conversion, without any apparent reason, I can compare the conversion of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals to no other than that of Saul of Tarsus. But there is this difference ; whereas the change of heart of Paul was due to Divine intervention, in the case of the ex-minister there was the intervention of no higher power and the operation of no greater influence than his wounded pride and offended dignity.
Sir, It might do the kon. gentlemen opposite good to give them some information about the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Probably the hon. member for North Norfolk might be benefited by it. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, Saul was a great man among the high priests of that day. He persecuted the Christians and was exceeding wrath with them. He breathed out tkreatenings and slaughter against them, but after he had seen the light, after the scales had fallen from his eyes, he became a much better man ; and what was the treatment he then received from those he had been associated with all his life ? Just what the ex-Minister of Railways is receiving from those high priests of political morality on the benches opposite. Paul was persecuted, scourged and ostracized, but his reputation to-day far outshines that of his traducers. Hon. gentlemen opposite are, in a like manner, seeking to traduce and ostracize politically, in every way possible, the ex-Minister of Railways. ' They are seeking to cast obloquy upon one whom, not long ago. they lauded for the great work he was doing. But the hon. gentleman can afford to ignore the attacks and pursue the even tenor of his way, undisturbed by these slanders and petty shafts of malice. He stands pre-eminent over them, if only in this

1033!)

And, so long as tliis arrangement works out to the advantage of the people of the United States as much as to the advantage of the people of Canada, there is not the slightest fear of the bonding arrangement being abrogated. And there is no good reason for introducing that argument to justify an expenditure by the people of Canada of a sum of $100,000,000 to gratify the ambition of hon. gentlemen opposite to have another transcontinental line built from ocean to ocean through Canada. If time permitted, I could quote other opinions which the right hon. gentleman has presented to the House with respect to this matter. But I fear I have already trespassed too long on the time of the House. There are two or three more matters in connection with this bonding privilege, however, to which I would like to draw attention. This bonding agreement has been in existence for at least forty years. It was in existence before the treaty of Washington, and it has been in existence since the abrogation of that treaty. And I would draw attention to the fact that even since 1895, even within the past three yeak-s, these bonding privileges have been enlarged and widened. Section 3005 of the United States compiled statutes, volume 2. enacts as follows :
All merchandise arriving at the ports ot New York. Boston, Portland in Maine, or any other port specially designated by the secretary ot the treasury, and destined tor places in the adjacent British provinces ; or arriving at the port ot Brownsville in Texas, or any other port specially designated by the secretary of the treasury, and destined for places in the republic of Mexico, may be entered at the custom house, and conveyed in transit through the territory of the United States without the payment of duties, under such regulations as the secretary of the treasury may prescribe.
The Act was amended on the 1st of March, 1895, by directing the secretary of the treasury to suspend its operation as far as it permits the transportation of merchandise in bond through the United States into the free zone of Mexico, so long as the free zone of Mexico exists. And, on the 21st of May, 1900, apparently without any pressure being put upon them by hon. gentlemen opposite, so far as we know without representations being made by any foreign country, this provision of the United States law was amended to read as follows :
All merchandise arriving at any port in the United States destined for any foreign country may be entered at the customs house and conveyed in transit through the territory of the United States, without the payment of duties, under such regulations as to examination and transportation as the secretary of the treasury may prescribe.
These gentlemen who are holding up this antiquated bugaboo to frighten the people of Canada, these gentlemen who indulge in this talk about the bonding privilege being Mr. CLARKE.
abrogated, have ignored the fact that the United States congress, the representatives of the people of that country, in the interest of that country, have, so far as we know voluntarily, widened the scope of the bonding arrangement so as to include not only Canada and Mexico, but every foreign country that does business with them.
Well, Sir, the right hon. gentleman quoted from the message of retaliation sent by President Cleveland in 1888. Lest we had not been frightened by what Mr. Carnegie had said or what the New York ' Sun ' had said, the utterances of President Cleveland were quoted. But President Cleveland's request was not complied with by the senate of the United States; nor was the request of President Harrison complied with by the senate. But what did the Senate do when the request was made to resort to ar,bi-rary measures ? They appointed a committee to inquire into the relations existing between Canada and the United States. They looked before they leaped. The right hon-gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had had all this information in his hand. Six months before, President Cleveland had been eulogizing the British commissioners who had prepared the draft Chamberlain treaty, in conjunction with gentlemen appointed by himself. He said they were anxious and willing to make reasonable arrangements for the settlement of the fishery difficulty. But the American senate did not accept the arrangement which the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Sir Charles Tupper and the third British commissioner, whose name at the moment I have forgotten, had made with the commissioners of the United States. And President Cleveland six months afterwards issues a retaliatory message. But the senate, knowing more about it than we do, did not take hasty action, but appointed a committee to take evidence. And what did they find ? I will read statements made by leading citizens of the United States, men who' were not to he carried away by attempts to make political capital on the one side or on the other.
The representatives of the business interests of the New England States and of the north-western states were consulted ; they were examined on oath by a committee of the United States Senate, and what testimony did they give as to the value of the bonding privilege ? The gentleman from whose testimony I shall read, are well-known business men, leading citizens, bankers, commercial men, manufacturers, the princes and the captains of the commerce of the New England and north-western states ; and this is the testimony of these gentlemen respecting the bonding privilege, so-called.


Mr.  E. Y.@: Smalley, of St. Paul. Minne-polis, was examined on June 10th, 1889, and he said :

We have still another system of roads recently constructed, running from St. Paul and Minneapolis to Canada, at the Sault Ste. Marie. This line is managed in Minneapolis, and its interests will doubtless be set forth to you there. But we in St. Paul wish it understood that our commercial interests are identical with that line of road, and that we should look with great disfavour on any legislation which would cripple that road or interfere with it as an outlet for our trade to and from the east. The distance to the seaboard by this road is not materially less than by way of Chicago, but we regard it as of great value as a regulator and leveller of freight rates, and we therefore wish to have it understood-I think I may say on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce-that we in St. Paul will fully sympathize with whatever statements may be made to you in Minneapolis on behalf of free intercourse with the east ever that new line of road.


Mr.   D@: Noyes, St. Paul, Minneapolis, was examined on June 10th, and said :
The matter of transportation is an important question, and an expression of views has been made before you that voices the sentiment of all our community, I believe ; and that is what we must have the freest, most accessible rates of transportation to the east ; that we car. not have them limited in the interest of cur own trunk lines even.
Then, Mr. Channing Seabury, St. Paul, gave this testimony :
We should look with a great deal of anx'ciy upon any legislation from the government that would in any way abridge our free intercourse by means of the Soo roads to the east, more especially with respect to our incoming merchandise. . . .
Something like a year ago we looked with a great deal of anxiety, at the time of the Canadian fisheries agitation, upon what we feared would be some hostile legislation on the part of Congress with respect to restricting transportation over the Canadian Pacific lines or those lines running in connection with the Soo road, and for the reasons I have stated we memorialized Congres at that time, asking that no hasty measures be passed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote Mr. Charles A. Pillsbury, of Minneapolis, the head of that great milling industry which turns out millions of barrels of flour every year. On June 10th he gave his testimony, as follows :
We look upon it as a matter of life and death with us that these Canadian roads, which keep up competition for freight, must be kept open. If at any time the combination gets large enough and strong enough so that it takes in the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific and all these systems, I think the result will be the gradual dying out of the mills at these points, and the transfer of the milling business to England. "We have hard work to compete who them anyway, but we are enabled to do it through the superior skill of our employees. That is a point that is absolutely vital to us, whatever interests these other po.nts may have. I tliiDk I speak the sentiment of every man in the whole North-west on that subject.


Mr.   C@: Sturtevant, of Minneapolis, says :
Since the opening of the Soo and the Canadian Pacific, which give us an all-rail line, independent of all combinations and all Chicago roads, to Canadian points, the haul is shorter, the grades are easier, and in my opinion it would be disastrous to both the agricultural and manufacturing and general commercial interests of the North-west to be deprived of free competition across the line.
These are the opinions given by leading citizens of Alinneapolis and St. Paul, to the committee appointed by tbe United States Senate to examine into the question of existing regulations, and to look into the value to the American and Canadian people respectively of this bonding privilege of which so much has been said. Some of the commissioners went to the New England States, and what did they find there ? Mr. Elijah A. Alorse, a well-known business man of Boston, Mass., said :
I would not tax Canadian cars passing through our territory, which would do great harm to the business interests of New England.
Air. Alden Speare, president of the Boston Chamber of Commerce, said :
If the shipping in bond to and from Canada were stopped, the whole uttransit and transhipment business would be transferred from our ports to those of Canada, amounting to over $24,250,000.
What a tremendous loss that would be to the Dominion of Canada ! What an injury it would be to the ports of the maritime provinces, if these bonding privileges, which in 1888 affected nearly $25,000,000 worth of goods, were abrogated and that traffic were diverted from New York and Boston and Portland into the harbours of Quebec, Alont-real, St. John or Halifax ! Mr. T. Jefferson Coolidge, of Boston, was examined on September 12th, and said :
I can say nothing that has not been said before. The transportation over Canadian roads is a matter of vital importance to all the interests of New England. We should be entirely at the mercy of the great trunk lines from New York westward if those Canadian roads did not exist.
The Chicago Board of Trade also had something to say, and I shall read you the resolutions which it passed. I find these resolutions in a letter written to the London ' Times ' by Air. James E. Campbell, a Canadian, formerly a member of the Chicago Board of Trade, protesting against the arguments of Mr. Carnegie, challenging and refuting his arguments. After refuting them, he quotes from a resolution passed by the Chicago Board of Trade at a time when the question of the bonding privilege was a live one over there. Air. Campbell writes :
While I was a member of the Chicago Board of Trade several years ago, there was a little difficulty about the Canadian canals. The board of trade directors took energetic action, and the following resolution was passed.

The resolution is prefaced toy a number of declarations pointing out the great commercial advantages which the bonding arrangement secures to the people of New England and the western and north-western states, and concludes :
Resolved, that this association respectfully protest against the President of the United States taking any action that will deprive its citizens from availing themselves of the facilities offered by the great highways of the Dominion of Canada for transporting the products of the United States through the Dominion of Canada, and re-entering the United States free of duties under proper bonded regulations.
Resolved, that these resolutions he telegraphed to the President of the United States, and a copy mailed to each member of the Senate and House of Representatives from the State of Illinois.
This is the evidence, Mr. Speaker, which the Board of Trade of Chicago presented to the president of the United States as to the disastrous effect that would ensue to the commerce of the west, as well as of New England, if this 'bonding privilege of which' so touch has>
been said, were abrogated and taken away. If time permitted, I could quote the right hon. gentleman articles from other sources to which he would give credence. I have in my hand a very lengthy editorial that appeared in the columns of the Toronto ' Globe ' on July 7th, 1898. I would commend to hon. gentlemen opposite a perusal of this article which was written prior to the assembly of the Joint High Commission in 1898. It pointed out that too much importance should not be attached to the value to Canada of this bonding privilege; and it completely shattered every argument that could be advanced in favour of the opposite view. 1 commend it because I am sure it will well repay perusal. The statements that have been made as to the value of the bonding privilege are completely repudiated in this editorial.
One word more in respect to the bonding privilege. The article from the ' Globe ' which I hold in my hand was written on the eve of the opening of negotiations between commissioners representing Great Britain, Canada and the United States, for a settlement of differences that exist between the United States and Canada, if it is true, as has been alleged by hon. gentlemen opposite, that we are now on the eve of a renewal of these negotiations, it seems to me that it is most unfortunate, and most unwise, that statements should be made by hon. gentlemen opposite, and especially the right hon. gentleman, so highly appreciative of the value of these bonding privileges. If the American commissioners read the statements of the Premier and of those supporting him, and are led to believe that we appreciate so highly the value of this bonding privilege ; that we are prepared to recommend the expenditure of 8100,000,000 of Canadian money to make ourselves indepen-Mr. CLARKE.
dent of that privilege ; will they not be more likely to place a high value on this privilege themselves, and to make a stiffer bargain with us than would otherwise have been the case ? It seems to me that it is a most deplorable thing that, on the eve of the renewal of these negotiations, every gentleman in this House who is going to take part in them should state that the fear of these bonding privileges being abrogated is the reason why the people of Canada are embarking on this enormous expenditure. The right hon. gentleman said in the course of his remarks that we exhibited levity when he referred to this bonding agreement. I can assure him that we did not mean to be discourteous. If we exhibited levity we did so because we thought the right hon. gentleman's fears were not well founded, that our American friends would abrogate the bonding privilege. I think our position would be much better and that we would be much more likely to get a better agreement with our neighbours to the south of us when negotiations are resumed if so much importance had not been jilaced on the value of this bonding privilege by those who are urging us to accept this proposition on that ground.
I do not think that I should take up the time of the House at any greater length. I have been actuated in all I have said by a sincere desire to give the reasons why I favour the position taken by.the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in preference to that taken by the right hon. leader of the government. There are many reasons which could be advanced why the position of the hon. leader of the opposition is sounder than the position of the right hon. leader of the government ; but 1 say, taking everything into consideration, that, when the appeal is made to the country, when the proposition made by the hon. leader of the opposition is presented to the Independent electors of the Dominion of Canada from hustings to hustings, as it will be, and when the electors come to reflect upon it and to consider it, I am fully convinced that the great bulk of the people will accept the proposition emanating from this side of the House in preference to that which has been presented by hon. gentlemen opposite, because, I believe that our proposition will provide a more economical, a speedier, a more perfect and a more satisfactory solution of the great transportation problem than can possibly be secured by the adoption of the plan of the right hon. gentleman. Sir, it does not rest in the mouth of the hon. Minister of Customs to charge us on this side of the House with being little Oandaans or with exhibiting a lack of patriotic spirit. The hon. leader of the opposition was not bound to present any scheme in opposition to that presented by hon. gentlemen opposite. He might have done his duty by offering criticisms of the scheme ; but, with that courage that he is

noted for, he did not hesitate to present his scheme in contra-distinction to that of hon. gentlemen opposite. He showed that he occupies worthily the position which has been filled hy the eminent Canadians who hare preceded him, that he is living up to the traditions of those great leaders and when he is called upon, as he will he in the near future, to assume the administration of public affairs, he will conduct an administration of those affairs that will be eminently worthy of the great party of which he is the honoured leader, and" he will do so in entire harmony and consonance with all that that party lias done for Canada in days gone by.


Mr. CHARLES ANGERS (Cbarlevois).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, surely it is after such a protracted debate as this that the old maxim should be kept in mind : Silence is golden ; a principle too often disregarded by several of my hon. friends. However, I think it proper to say a few words on the proposed scheme, without attempting to discover new aspects of the question.
To be frank, I must admit that, at the outset, the grand scheme of a second transcontinental did not in the least appeal to me. With our population of six millions, and after paying $100,000,000 to build the Canadian Pacific Railway it seemed to me that the proposal was rather bold and hnsty. Then the Grand Trunk Company, who are so interested in directing our traffic to Portland, did not, to my mind, offer sufficient guarantee that the interests of our shipping ports would receive due consideration at their hands. Then again, I thought to myself that a second transcontinental located to the north of Lake Winnipeg, as proposed by the Trans-Canada Company, would ensure a shorter route and answer better the future requirements of our North-west at an early date. Lastly, the construction of a line from Quebec to Moncton without ascertaining beforehand what traffic there would be, and to what extent the Intercolonial might cope with it, seemed to me premature. I would also have thought it wiser on the part of the government, before binding themselves by contract, to have caused surveys to be made to find out the exact character and value of the country to be traversed and the probable cost of the undertaking. But I understand that these surveys will be made and that the road will be located at the most advantageous points, with a view to promoting colonization and industry and securing the easiest gradients in order to render practicable and profitable the haulage of grain and heavy freight from the west.
Besides, the debate, which was not to the advantage of the opposition, suggested new arguments and ideas, and I said to myself : my fears may be exaggerated, and the building of that transcontinental may be a source of great benefit to the country in general, and to my province in particular.
So, I think, it will be wise to lay aside my doubts and support the'measure.
All, or almost all, seem to think that the construction of a second transcontinental is unavoidable. Criticism bears rather on questions of detail. Besides, we are put face to face with two policies, and we have to choose between them. The hon. leader of the opposition, despising the easy ways of the critic, tried his hand at the difficult task of the inventor. He imagined a scheme for a transcontinental which is strange, to say the least. But the road he would build would have the double advantage of costing a great deal more than the Grand Trunk Pacific and of not' doing anything towards the development of that new country between Quebec and Winnipeg, which it would be so interesting and profitable to open up and settle.
So, the Grand Trunk Pacific is much preferable to that hybrid road, made up of sections bought or built, which the leader of the opposition has in his mind. And, as in politics, often we have to be content with relative perfection-the superiority of the government plan would be sufficient reason for my accepting it.
Moreover, several weighty arguments are brought forward in support of the proposal, and though they may not be conclusive, they nevertheless make it very likely that the undertaking will be fruitful of good results ; considerable development of traffic between the eastern provinces and the western, where immigration is booming and which will have to be supplied with manufactured goods, carriage of live stock and grain from the west, to Canadian ports, provided easy gradients allow haulage of freight under cheap and paying conditions : importance of opening up to industry and settlement, especially in Ontario and Quebec, new areas, abounding in water powers, in timber of all sorts and in fertile soils. And that argument from the point of view of Quebec, is evidently very conclusive, since this is probably the only chance we have of having a railway built at the expense of the Dominion government from *one end of the province to the other. Of course, I do not mean that the building of a railway will by itself ensure the settlement of the country it runs through. It is necessary, besides, that the settler be directed there, that he be protected systematically against his inexperience, against the lumberman, and guided in the choice of a location. We have already in Quebec favoured districts where colonization is dormant. To send the settler to a new country, without the necessary advice and help, would be exposing him to many disappointments.
I shall not. Sir, take up the time of the House by a detailed discussion of the clauses of the contract. That has already been done, and very thoroughly, by several who have already spoken. I shall only say that it seems to have been prepared with

care and a laudable concern for Canada's Intersts. Although it does not contain all the provisions I would have thought desirable that it should contain, nevertheless, it gives as reasonable and fair assurances, if carried out, that Canada will profit by it. And if we compare that contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway agreement, passed by the Conservative party, and in which they pride themselves so much to-day, it seems clearly to be less advantageous to the company and more profitable to us. Practically, the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed at the expense of the country, and handed over to the shareholders who are getting fat dividends out of it to-day. And even if we add the present value of the lands granted to the cash subsidies and to the works donated, we find that to the cost of construction we have added numerous millions which the company rakes in to-day through the sale of those lands, whose value is ever increasing.
To the Grand Trunk Pacific we grant only a guarantee of interest. For seven years that interest will be left to our charge. That will amount to twelve or thirteen millions, including interest on cost of eastern section. True, we are building at our expense the eastern section from Moncton to Winnipeg, but the company agrees to pay the interest for forty-three years on the amount thus expended ; and at the expiry of the lease, that part of the road remains our property. In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, we paid the cost of builds ing the road, even more, and there is nothing left us, not even that efficient control over the rates, which is reserved to the government under the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific.
To be in a position to judge of the value of a political act, it is often useful to resort to comparisons ; and if the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme is ahead, and away ahead, of the Canadian Pacific Railway agreement, and of the plan proposed by the leader of the opposition-and I am satisfied it is- that alone should induce our opponents to show greater fairness and reserve in their criticisms.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I may be allowed to make a short digression and to draw the attention of the government to a very interesting region deprived heretofore of railway communications ; the county of Charlevois, which I have the honour to represent and the neighbouring county of Saguenay which extends to the Atlantic. As has been stated over and over again in the course of this debate, the railway has become an almost indispensable factor of progress. We also in Charlevois would like to have the sun shine for us. Our population exceeds twenty thousand souls ; we have large areas of timber lauds where the lumbering industry is begun to acquire considerable importance : agriculture, live stock, dairying, properly encouraged, would give striking results. We


Louis Charles Alphonse Angers: possess unlimited iron ore deposits, which will, in the near future, I hope, be worked on an extensive scale. As all other taxpayers we have paid our quota of the country's revenue. Why should we not be put on the way of progress ? The country of Saguenay, whose interests are the same as ours as regards the building of a railway, is a vast region abundantly supplied with water powers, which facilitate the working of its immense forests. Mines of all descriptions are abundant and in the opinion of those who have made a study of the question, gives promise of the brightest future. Its fisheries all along the coast are coveted by our neighbours to the south. These reasons would suffice to render favourable to our cause this progressive government, so anxious to deal equitably with all. But, I may add motives of general interest, by stating that this railway running through Charlevois would become the first link of an important line for the shipping in all seasons of heavy freight to the Seven Island bay, an ideal seaport. As a matter of fact, the North Power and Navigation Company is spending enormous sums at that point for the purpose of establishing very important industries there, and making of it a winter seaport. That company has obtained during this session a charter authorizing it to connect Quebec to the Seven Islands bay by means of a railway which will cross the Saguenay in the vicinity of Chicoutimi, with branches to Murray bay and St. Paul's bay. According to all the information collected, the most favourable location and that which will be adopted, I am assured, will run through Charlevoix and ensure us quick and practical means of transportation.
That company request from the government the grant of a subsidy ; I trust their application will not be rejected. Already the government have given some evidence of their concern for my constituency in connecting Murray bay to the south shore by a ferry boat which enables us to reach the Intercolonial within an hour's time. But they will be prepared, I trust, to add to our gratitude, by granting us a new favour. The service provided is most beneficial to Murray bay and the neighbouring parishes. But I do not forget that my duty is to work for the best interests of my constituents, and to obtain for all the best means of transportation available. I think it fair to remark that this service between Murray bay and the south shore will not be a burden to the country, since the increase of traffic thereby ensured to the Intercolonial, will represent a substantial interest on the capital invested.
Then, to motives of local interest, I add those of a general character. That line from Quebec to Seven Islands will become an important link in our system of railways. The distance betwen these two points is about 300 miles. If we succeed in making of the Seven Islands bay an open port in all

seasons and in maintaining- navigation in winter time, which it seems quite possible to do, the proposed railway would acquire a very great importance, and Clarke city (as the Seven Islands settlement is called) would become a renowned shipping port. And who knows but, in the near future, that company would not find it practicable to carry out the great scheme of a railway extending to the coast of Labrador, on the Atlantic ocean, shortening as much as possible the distance on sea between Europe and America, and adding to our transcontinentals the most natural and useful of extensions that could possibly be desired.
I have heard, Mr. Speaker, a number of warm, stirring and poetical perorations concerning the brilliant future that awaits our beautiful and beloved country. Even if I were inclined to do the same, I might be prevented from doing so by a lack of sufficient confidence in my powers. However, I may say that I also have faith in the great future prosperity of Canada, and specially of the province of Quebec, not only in the physical sense, but in the moral as well, provided we remain faithful to the part assigned to us by Providence and provided also we do not neglect the great opportunities which are offering to us.


Mr. SEYMOUR E. GOURLEY (Colchester).: Mr. Speaker, if this debate shall have the effect of turning the attention of Canadians to the study of the geography of Canada and to the physical features of our country as related to the question of transportation, it will have answered a very high and national purpose. The right lion, the Prime Minister submitted his scheme to the House on the main proposition, that it was a national railway from ocean' to ocean, and he also submitted three subsidiary propositions. He felt that perhaps his main proposition might be refuted, and being an old parliamentary hand he commenced to hedge, and he called to his support these three subsidiary propositions to which I shall refer. These subsidiary propositions are :	First, the fear of the abrogation of
the bonding privilege; second, that this was to be a common highway; and third, that It was to relieve traffic congestion. In the course of the debate the subsidiary propositions have been practically eliminated, so that the scheme of the government rests upon the main proposition; that this is to be a great national highway from ocean to ocean, and that it can be Justified as such. The subsidiary proposition, that this is to be a common highway, might be Justified, but upon investigation the grounds on which it was sought to be Justified, turn out to be utterly unscientific. I have undertaken to inquire into the arrangement between the Wabash and the Grand Trunk Railway which was quoted as a Justification for the use of this road as a common highway, and I find that these two systems draw their trade
and their traffic from different sources, and only unite for 200 miles to get to a common market. I can understand that two great railways which tap two different districts and which are not competitors for trade, can join in a common highway running to a common market, but it is possible that two great transcontinental railways, struggling in the same territory for trade could have a common running arrangement over such an extensive system. Why, Sir, every man on each system must struggle for his own railway, and it would be utterly impossible that there could be any joint user on a transcontinental line of that sort. That proposition however has been practically eliminated from the debate by the common consent of the House, so that I need not refer to it further. Now, we have heard a great deal about the bonding privilege in this House, and I am glad that my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) asked that the English language shall be used correctly in describing that arrangement. Speaking for the maritime provinces, I want to tell you that what you call a privilege we regard as a curse. If I thought that by voting against this scheme of the government and defeating it, we could get rid of that bonding curse I would most cheerfully cast my vote against it, so strongly do I feel that the bonding arrangement is a degradation to the maritime interests of Canada. That bonding arrangement means that the people of Ontario and the interior of Canada are led to use American ports instead of our own Canadian ports. It is a degradation of the commerce of Canada to the commerce of the United States, and my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) understood it thoroughly when lie showed that the people of the United States knew better than the Prime Minister of Canada the real secret of that arrangement. It was an attempt, in the early days on the part of the United States to subject and to dominate the trade of Canada. When it -was thought that Canada was fair game for the political system of the United States, this bonding treaty was one of their schemes to dominate Canada and to control our great country in respect to trade. It was a subtle way to ultimately capture the political destines of this country. I for one say, that it is time for us to reconsider our position in this matter, and if negotiations should be opened, I trust that our Prime Minister will say to the Americans, abrogate that bonding treaty at once, for we in Canada feel that the time has come when we should use our own ports. Gentlemen of Ontario, you are largely responsible for this bonding arrangement. Before confederation it was one of the -evils of these days that your Grand Trunk Railway system found an ocean port outside of Canadian territory. In the early days, away back in 1854, the people of Ontario, instead of refusing to use an American port, instead of sending their delegates down to the maritime provinces to arrange their commercial inter-

ests with us; consented to allow the Grand Trunk Railway system which you were subsidizing, to find its outlet at Portland. Confederation came later, and now we have uew sentiments and new aspirations. I address myself to that subject as a maritime province man with great feeling when I say, that we regard that bonding system as depriving the people of the maritime provinces of the just right they have to carry on the commerce of this country through the Atlantic ports of Canada. I shall gladly vote against this measure if my right lion, friend is able to convince me that its defeat would result in the abrogation of the bonding treaty. I remember that years ago men went around with bated breath and said : Don't say anything to the Americans or they will abolish the reciprocity treaty. Well, Sir, the time came when the reciprocity treaty was abolished, and the people of Canada found that instead of it being a benefit to this country it had been a bondage. They found that it fettered the ambition, and the national life of this country. And Sir, until Canada attains a national strength and power so as to be able to dictate to the United States I shall never consent to another reciprocity treaty, because I believe that any reciprocity treaty that could be arranged now would be at the expense of the reputation and material interests of this country. Fifty years hence when Canada is strong, and I hope the dominant nation, then if the United States desire to negotiate with us I will enter into negotiations with them ; but not till then. This bonding privilege is of the same sort as the reciprocity treaty. Let it go tomorrow, and if it did go, then twenty-four hours afterwards we would have a better position in the eyes of the world, and we would be able to exploit our own ports and depend upon ourselves to manage our own trade.
'Now -Sir, having disposed of these subsidiary propositions I will deal with the main proposition of the right hon. gentleman. He told us that if this railway is to be justified at all, it is to be justified on the ground that it is a national railway from ocean to ocean. I am prepared to vote for a measure of that sort, if upon analysis it answers the description which the Minister of Finance gave of it. I am a railway man; I believe in railways. I want railways built in every portion of this country and if this were a mere provincial railway; if it were a railway to relieve the congestion in Manitoba, if it were a railway to help New Brunswick, I would hold up both hands in support of it. During this very session Mackenzie & Mann came here for a large grant for a railway in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. I have always advocated this parliament giving every province all the aid that is essential to its proper development. We in Canada are only at the beginning of the building of railways and the giving of
subsidies to promote the building of railways. I am not in sympathy with a large number of the leading weekly and daily papers of Ontario which say that the time has come when the bonusing of railways should cease. On the contrary, I think we are just at that threshold of the bonusing of railways in Canada.
Now, the test which I am going to apply to this question is this : Does the railway offer the best possible solution of the transportation problems of Canada ? Because, when you come to deal with a great national highway involving an expenditure of one hundred or two hundred millions of dollars, you should test it not by the consideration whether it will aid one province or another, or whether it will supply one province or another with railways. We could probably do that with a tenth or a fiftieth part of the expenditure involved in the present scheme. But if this measure is based on the highest development of the transportation system of Canada, then I am one to say that no amount of money that can be asked for the exploitation of such a scheme should be refused by this parliament. But before I take that ground, I have to ascertain whether this scheme answers the demand of a great transcontinental highway which will solve the transportation problems of Canada. If this great policy is not well based, then the proposition to spend two hundred millions of dollars is criminal folly. When this parliament opened, and I heard the announcement in His Excellency's speech that a commission was to be appointed in reference to the transportation facilities of this country, 1 felt that we had arrived at a stage of development that was commendable.
You know, we have been unfortunate in reference to our transportation matters. Our confederation came very late. Before we were confederated, all our transportation routes hadi merely a local and provincial outlook. What has happened in the United States. They were confederated for a hundred years, and all their transportation routes had the broad, continental outlook, embracing all the states and developing in the highest manner their national system of transportation. Then, after confederation we built the Intercolonial Railway. But at that time we had only the four provinces. We had not the Pacific province, nor the great lone land; and even the first step we took, for the building of a highway to unite the provinces, had merely a provincial, eastern outlook. And ivhat happened ? It is admitted that that railway was not located as a commercial railway. At that moment the military idea was dominant, and I believe it was right. I believe that if we had only one railway to-day in the maritime provinces, it should be located exactly where the Intercolonial Railway is, because, in the case of trouble -and we must always look out for that-it


Seymour Eugene Gourley: affords us powers of defence. It is along the St. Lawrence, where a British man-of-war could protect every mile of it from assault. Therefore, if we had only one railway, its location would he justified, because it is a fair commercial highway' and an excellent military highway.
Then the Canadian Pacific Railway was located. At that time the opposition were not treating the railway problems of the country as we treat them to-day. After confederation, when the Conservative government undertook the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, they were met with a most systematic and unreasonable opposition. The result was that the parliament of Canada could not treat the Canadian Pacific Railway as the highest settlement of the transportation problems of Canada, but they had to locate it where they could. At that time the people of Canada were weak financially, and, worse, they were weak in a national sense. Therefore, this parliament had to struggle against the greatest difficulties, and they located that railway where they could-near the frontiers of the United States, and in a way that makes it a longer route, and not in the highest sense one of the great transportation routes of Canada. It has of course, been of enormous benefit to Canada. It has developed the trade of Canada. It has been the greatest immigration agency Canada ever possessed, and it has been a great university for Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company has organized great companies and sent them abroad to England and the European continent to educate the people of Europe in reference to Canada and to help roll back that tide of slander which for a hundred years had crippled this country.
No country in the world has been so unfortunate as Canada. No country in the world has ever had the unfortunate history that Canada has had. For instance, Canada had always four great enemies. We had, first, the Hudson Bay Company. That great company, powerful and rich, had numerous and very strong shareholders in England and Scotland. What happened ? They wanted to keep the greater part of Canada shut up for their business interests. The result was that every officer of the Hudson Bay Company who came down to Montreal, and every shareholder in the company, were instructed to say that the whole country was a frozen country unfit for the habitation of man. Consequently, we had that company working against the best interests of Canada. Then we had the hostility of the United States, who sent its immigration agents throughout the whole world repeating the same story about the whole' of Canada. Then, the public men and the people of England gave us the cold shoulder. And, what was perhaps worse than either the Hudson Bay Company or the United States or even the cold shoulder of the people and public men of England, we had the Liberal party of Canada down to the year 1890, men of power and ability, going up and down through this country, slandering Canada, holding out to the world that Canada was unfit to be a country, and in every way trying to misrepresent us abroad. I will say to the Prime Minister and his colleagues: Gentlemen, if you are repentent and are good citizens of Canada now, I do not regret the revolution which befell my party in 1896; if holding offices will make you good citizens, 1 thank God that you hold them. However, what is the position of these hon. gentlemen to-day? And when I come to that, I will test their policy by the strong position they occupy. There never was a government in this country that could enter upon a stronger transcontinental policy, free from little political pulls, free from grafters, and free from every influence except the high influence that should prevail upon a government in dealing with a great problem like this. This is the first government that has been free to act on this matter in a high national fashion. Therefore, I will hold the Prime Minister and his policy down closely' to the lines he laid out, when he declared that this must be a true national policy without any appeal to provincial or local issues, and intended to serve high national interests. We are today', Sir, strong in the fact that we are a more united Canada than formerly. We enjoy a most enviable position both at home and abroad. We are strong in our splendid buoyant revenue which enables us to stand up here or anywhere and evolve a policy which will be in the interests of Canada and back that policy financially without fear of reverse. And what is better than all, we have an increasing and vitalizing national sentiment in this country. What we lacked in the past was a national sentiment from one end of the country to the other, which rose above local prejudices and interests and looked to the development of Canada as a whole. Go where you will, to-day, you will find this vitalizing sentiment. I recollect when poor Sir Jdhn Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper were wearying themselves out striving to create a national sentiment in this country, there was an innocent young man, now the Finance Minister, who was going up and down Nova Scotia harranguing against confederation and proposing to snatch the province of Nova Scotia from it. I remember often being frightened at the drastic measures that gentleman was advocating. I used to wish that we had three or four railways connecting Nova Scotia with the other provinces because I feared that some day we would seize that little iron band, the Intercolonial Railway, and tear the whole province from consolidated Canada. I would assume that the hon. gentleman was guided by the loftiest motives, but I recollect having had many an anxious hour, when that

movement was going on, fearing it might succeed. There was also some time Inter a little kick up in the North-west, the rebellion of the Metis, which had the sympathy of the First Minister. I do not know that he had anything to do with it personally, but in the province of Quebec he used to make splendid speeches on behalf of the rebels. And if any stray Metis happened to be around the public halls, when the right lion, gentleman was addressing meetings at that time, he would no doubt have borne back to his benighted brethren the idea that it was the duty of his compatriots to rebel against that infamous statesman, Sir John Macdonald and his infamous government. In fact we never had a strong healthy sentiment in this country so long as these lion, gentlemen were spouting their discontent in opposition. But as soon as they were elected to power and became shut up in public office, they changed their tune and the whole country became united and Canadian from one end to the other. That change in the national sentiment of hon. gentlemen opposite, their conversion, their casting aside of their former pessimistic views and anti-national ideas, is about the only thing upon which we can congratulate the country since their accession to office. For my part having no particular care for office, I would rather occupy an independent position in parliament where a man can say what he believes, which is the most precious right on earth, and a cabinet minister is about the last man who can do so. The right hon. the First Minister and his colleagues are the first government in Canada which has ever been in a position, backed by a strong national sentiment, enjoying a splendid revenue, and the patronage and affection of the people of England-because that has come to us at last-this is the first government that has ever been in a position to bring forward a broad measure of national policy in the fullest sense of the term. I am going to criticise this railway policy to see whether it is really a national policy in the highest sense, and if I find that it answers that test, I will support this Bill, if not I shall oppose it with the utmost strenuousness.
The first question I put is this. Does this measure offer the best solution of our transportation problem ? If it does, I shall not carp about the expenditure. If it answered the purpose, I would not care if it cost $300,000,000. I have every confidence in the position of Canada, and I hope I will make it clear that I know something about the geographical and physical position and the trade routes of this country. When the announcement that a transportation commission would be appointed was made, I began to think that this government was perhaps more worthy of support than I had previously imagined. In the appointment of a commission, I thought it was taking the best means of arriving at a correct solution Mr. GOURLEY.
of the problem before us. We had accidental railways built in the past. The Intercolonial Itailway was built apparently on some accidental plan. It followed a circuitous route intended to suit provincial exigencies and not the purposes of the Dominion at large.
Our railways have been in the main, mere provincial affairs, without any national outlet up to the present. But now we are in a position to take a broader stand and see that our railways are constructed on the most scientific and correct basis from the national point of view. The best course to pursue, in order to arrive at a correct solution, would have been to appoint a commission, or better still, have an inquiry made by this House. Why, at one time we had the whole parliament of England investigating the great problem of transportation. Experts were called before the bar of the House in order that the members of parliament might have the views of these experienced railway men at first hand. I thought that the wisest course for the Prime Minister to have pursued would have been to follow the precedent set by the British House of Commons and have the evidence submitted direct by the parties themselves to the members of this House. WTe could well have afforded to spend one or two months on the inquiry. We could have brought experts from Germany and the United States and every country in the world, who would make themselves acquainted with the geographical and physical conditions of Canada and give us the benefit of their views. Then when we had arrived at a decision as to what transportation route we should lay down, we could push the work forward unhesitatingly. No matter what such an inquiry would have cost, the expenditure would have been a wise one. Supposing it had cost half a million dollars, would not that have been a wise expenditure in order that we might satisfy ourselves as to the best course to pursue before undertaking the investment of $100,000,000 or $200,000,000 in a transportation enterprise ? But my right hon. friend said that the tide would not wait. Well, we know that in Nova Scotia. We are familiar with that fact down there, and in telling us that the tide would not wait he was not giving us much information. But sometimes tides will wait a little. It always waits on the wise, and it would have been better to have waited three, or even six months, in order to possess ourselves of the most ample information before entering upon this vast undertaking. Had the Prime Minister waited to get this information, he would have avoided what I regard as the first mistake in his policy.
What are the necessities which this proposed railway is intended to meet ? I assume that the Prime Minister has laid down this measure upon the broad, national ground of a national highway intended to

solve the greatest national problem that faces the people of Canada to-day. Then, let us see what they are. The first problem that Canada should consider in connection with a national transcontinental railway, is whether we are able to carry the trade of the Orient, whether we are able to dominate that trade ? Secondly-but subsidiary-will this road dominate the carrying trade of Canada so as to carry both imports and exports through our ocean ports on the Atlantic and Pacific ? For this railway must dominate both oceans. I am not here to advocate simply the exploitation of Atlantic harbours ; I am here for the exploiting of the Pacific harbours also. Thirdly- mark me, for if I am right in these other things, this follows as a mathematical result-the carriage of the whole imports and exports of the United States over Canadian routes and through Canadian ports. If we can dominate the trade of the Orient and the trade of our own part of the continent, we can dominate the trade of the whole continent,; the control of the trade of the United States follows, ex necessitate, the trade of the Orient. . And, fourth, the dominance and supreme control by Canada of the commerce of both the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. These are the four problems to be kept in view in considering a Canadian transcontinental route. Now I would ask my right hon. friend if these conditions are met; I would ask him if his experts have advised him that this is the best railway that can be laid down in Canada to solve these questions ? If so, this is the great national railway and should be supported by every man in Canada.
But this whole proposition is based on the question whether Canada is a nation. This question I have heard argued on many occasions in this House and it is a question which should be solved by this country. While I am a strong Canadian, while I have the greatest faith in the destiny of Canada, I say that at the present time Canada is not capable of being made a nation under the circumstances under which we find ourselves. We have a long fringe of population around the shore of Nova Scotia, aloug the shores of the St. Lawrence, along the lakes and along the Canadian Pacific Railway to British Columbia-a long thin line of population. Sir, if that is the extent of Canada, if that is the utmost area that can be populated in this country, we can never be a nation ; we have too much breadth and not enough depth ; no national life could grow in vigour upon such lines. The whole question of a national railway depends upon the question of whether we have depth of country. What are the physical features ; what is the physical trend of the continent and what do these say as to Canada becoming a nation ? We must interrogate the geography, for we cannot become a nation if nature has determined otherwise. Have we the depth of territory
in which to make a nation on British North America ? That question was asked a long time ago in the legislature of Nova Scotia by a very eminent man, Joseph Howe. Nova Scotia had no union then with the other provinces, and we could not tell what this great country up here would amount to in the future. I may differ from my friends on this side, and from my friends on the other side, but I contend that the first consideration in the building of a great national railway is to find out whether we have depth of country whether we have three or four hundred miles of territory to the north that is fit for the abode of white men, that is fit for the production of white men, that is fit for the business that white men conduct in the manner in which they conduct it, to reach the highest objects of civilization. If we have not depth of country in Canada, it is idle to talk about national railways ; it is idle to talk about exploiting great questions of this kind. If, as was believed years ago, we could never have more than a thin fringe of population, the building of a nation here would be impossible. In this connection, let me refer to such a statement made by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) in the debate on the budget, when that hon. gentleman contended that Canada, geographically was but an annex to the Mississippi valley. At the time I indignantly repudiated that statement:
These two countries are geographically one. Our North-west is geographically a portion of the Mississippi valley.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I deny that.


John Charlton: The province ot Quebec is geographically as nearly allied to the New England states as to the mouth of the St. Lawrence.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The United States is geographically an annex of Canada.


John Charlton: The province of Ontario has its nearest route to the sea across American territory.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: No man who studies the map would make such a statement. Study the map of North America, and yo.u will find that the United States is geographically an annex of Canada.


John Charlton: Then the annex has got a little ahead of the main body. The two countries, I repeat, are geographically one.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Never.
I respect tbe learning of tbe hon. gentleman. When I entered this House, I was impressed with his research and the extent of his information. And these things are creditable; they are what we expect of members of this House, and what we admire in them. But when I found the hon. gentleman wobbling on almost every question ; when I found him seconding a resolution in relation to the Boer war, which was Hostile to every feeling of an Anglo-Saxon,
I felt that that hon. gentleman was but an unsafe guide, though, apparently possessed

of great intelligence. But, when, in a speech in this House, he struck at the hope and affection of this country, by stating that this country was a mere annex to the Mississippi valley, I felt convinced that he was not the student, not the scholar, I had taken him to be. Had he been what I at one time thought him, he would have directed his attention to ascertain the true teaching of geography. No man is fit to be a public man in this country who does not know the course of every river and the lesson it teaches. He misread the plain teaching of the geography of this country. Your ancestors, Mr. Speaker, knew far better-the French pioneers knew that the trend of the continent was to the north, and not to the south.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the first thing that we Canadians should do in a great debate of this kind is to ascertain whether Canada has the capacity to be a nation, for, asi far as I am concerned, if I should find that the hon. gentleman's reading of the geography of this country is correct, I would say : Let us abandon the attempt. I atn a strong Canadian and a strong imperialist, bnt I would say that you cannot fight against nature, against the geography, the physical features of this country. In this great debate I want to put on record what I take to be the true principles that should be laid down. With regard to the geography of this country I do not know if the British representatives who sat upon the commission that drew that 49tli parallel were intelligent men or not, but I am bound to say that the American commissioners who sat on that commission which settled on the 49th parallel as the boundary were the more capable students of the geography of this continent. Some people have thought that that 49th parallel was settled by hap-hazard. I venture to say that if you study the geography of Canada you will find that there is a perfect physical division of this continent along the 49th parallel and the United States commissioners of course being possessed of much more information than the British commissioners pushed their boundary up to the head waters, up to the source of all the streams running south on this continent. They pushed the boundary up to the head waters of three great rivers, the Missouri, the Mississippi and the Ohio that bore the commerce of the United States to the Gulf of Mexico and in doing that they believed that they had taken in all of the country that was ever going to be fit for anything. They believed that all beyond the 49th parallel, where the waters flowed to the Arctic ocean and the great Hudson bay valley, was an absolutely Arctic country unfit to support any civilization. The Americans went home after settling that boundary and said : We did not get up to the 54th parallel at which we desired to1 place the boundary, but we got Mr. GOURLEY.
everything fit for human habitation in North America. They thought that they had left a mere fringe aud then they proceeded to inculcate that doctrine among the people of this continent, even in Canada. I remember in my boyhood being deterred from remaining in Canada by the thought that we had no scope for national life in this country.
I undertake to say that the 49th parallel marks two great physical and geographical and political spheres in this country. If you look at the map you will see one set of great rivers flowing one way, to the south and the other set of great rivers flowing to the north, one through a southern country and one through a northern country. If the boundary after following the 49th parallel from the Pacific coast had left the 49th parallel at about the middle of Montana and had run down to Minnesota-for the Red river which runs through Manitoba and empties into. Lake Winnipeg, that gives the magnificent wheat valley to Manitoba, takes its rise in Minnesota ; just north of the Mississippi there are two lakes' there and the Ohio rises in one and flows south, the Red river rises in the other and flows ipofith-if, I say, the boundary had cut down between these two lakes in Minnesota and had run thence to the east we would have had a perfect geographical and physical division of this continent. As it is, there is a practically perfect physical division. When my hon. friend undertook to say that Canada was a geographical annex to the United States he was all wrung because nature has set upon the face of this continent two great physical divisions and intended these two physical features for two peoples with different verges and scopes, marked out for different civilization and I do not believe we can blame them, and when hon. gentlemen used to talk about trade going into the United States they did not understand that the trade of this country has two different routes marked as distinctly as can be, and that unless the people of the United States become a weak people and we become a dominant people, able to turn the course of nature, we will not be able to dominate that trade. It is the same way with the United States, they can never dominate our trade if we exploit our routes with intelligence.
This is the debate that should have occurred in this House fifty years ago in order that the people of Canada should have thoroughly understood and appreciated the impregnable commercial position they occupy on this continent. You will see, Mr. Speaker, that had it not been for railways, if the era of railway development had not come the United States would have been entirely out of the transportation system as far as the old country is concerned because all their great rivers, the Mississippi, the Missouri and the Ohio would have taken their trade down to the Gulf of Mexico and

the result would have been that the whole trade of the United States would have been taken south away from the great commercial centres of the north. We must remember that the great entrepots of trade are away north, England, Germany and the continent are north of Canada and if the United States to-day had to trust to natural trade routes they would not have the slightest chance of competing with Canada, because our trade routes run in a northeasterly direction. Look at the course of the St. Lawrence river, it points east distinctly as the course which our trade route should take in this country ; they should be north-east. The trade routes of this country should be all north-east. Any trade route in this country that goes southeast is against the natural trend and entirely and unnecessarily lengthens the trade routes of Canada. As these trade routes should go as far north-east as the geography of the country will permit in order to get near the great commercial nations of the east, because while our average latitude is 47 degrees the average latitude of England, the great market, the great distributing country to which the goods of all the world would go, is north of the 50th parallel. Therefore, every trade route in this country, to be scientific and natural and to develop the highest efficiency, must be north-east. Cartier and the early French explorers who discovered the St. Lawrence river realized the extraordinary position that that river occupied in reference to the future trade of this country.
I want the teaching of my hon. friend from North Norfolk with reference to the geography of this country to be utterly dismissed. I recognized that he spoke very intelligently last year in regard to the geography of South Africa, and I am sorry that he is not as familiar with the geography of Canada. It is a strange thing that we in Canada have all studied the geography of every other country than our own ; that is one of the most unfortunate things in the history of Canada and I trust that hereafter the geography of this country will be studied and studied thoroughly.
I have said that the trade routes of this country, that the .physical geography of this country indicate that Canada should be a separate physical, geographical and political entity.
Now, that is all very well, but the people of the United States believed that when they settled the boundary at the 49th parallel they left Canada only with a narrow fringe of territory. If they were right at that time, although we have national aspirations we never will be able to fulfil them' if we content ourselves with a country 3,000 miles in length from one ocean to another and only forty miles in width without any national strength or power. This railway to be a national railway _ought to be thrown back to within fifty milesTof James
bay. It ought to be thrown back north of Lake Winnipeg and it ought to proceed to the mouth of the Saguenay. That is practically the Trans-Canada route that has been selected and to which every man coming from the maritime provinces has been committed. If the route is to be followed which is of the highest national advantage to the country it will start at Port Simpson and proceed eastward in a line north of Lake Winnipeg, fifty miles south of James bay and out at the mouth of the Saguenay. I do not care whether it would be a failure commercially or not or whether it would open up new country because I am satisfied that it would settle the question of national , life in Canada for all time to come. Standing here I cannot assume that the country to be traversed by this road is not a country rich in its possibilities. Build that railway, throw it back to within fifty miles of James bay and to the north of Lake Winnipeg and we shall exhibit to the world that we have a great depth of country, that we have 100 miles of territory behind that and if it proves to be as rich in agricultural territory as it has proved to be a mineral and timber territory, then we can repel the accusation which has been made against Canada for a hundred years that we are not a nation and that we cannot become a nation because we will be a nation from the very moment that we start upon the work of carrying out that idea notwithstanding the blunder of those who say that we should build the railway south of Lake Winnipeg.


Mr. MURRAY.: I have listened very attentively to the hon. gentleman's very able address, and I would like to ask what he has to say in regard to the geography of the Ottawa and Georgian bay canal. He has spoken of the St. Lawrence route, and 1 would like to hear from him particularly upon the Georgian bay canal route.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I would be very happy to assist in developing the Georgian bay or any other route if it is possible by the development of that route to aid Canada's trade in any shape or form. That would have been a splendid opportunity, if the right lion, leader of the government had carried out his plan, to have experts from Germany and the United States placed upon that route for three or four weeks so that they might examine it and report upon its possibilities. I want to exploit every available route in Canada. We must not put all our eggs in one basket. If we fail in one let us exploit another, until we determine what are the great trade routes of Canada. I am sorry that I cannot follow the hon. gentleman, because my province has forbidden toe to vote for any transcontinental route that goes south of Lake Winnipeg. The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) must vote against the scheme which has been proposed by the government

and every hon. gentleman from the maritime provinces must vote against it.
Mr. liMMERSON. How about the alternative scheme ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am prepared to support all alternative schemes.


Mr. EMMERSON.: How about a mandate from the province ?


Mr GOURLEY.: Now, I have told the House about the route that I think the railway should take. It should go through the Peace River valley and the Roc-ky mountains to Fort Simpson. I have a friend who spent some time at Fort Simpson two or three years ago, and he said that the universal opinion years ago in San Francisco tvas that we had at Port Simpson the best port on the Pacific ocean. The people of San Francisco thought that we were a very sleepy people in not undertaking to exploit that port and attempt to take away their trade from the east. The people of the United States, owing to our physical advantages in connection with the Pacific ocean and the trade of the east, have developed the ports of San Francisco and Seattle and now they fear that they will be out of it because they see that we in Canada are waking up. I have no doubt of the great resources of the country which would be traversed by the route I have outlined. I went carefully over the whole of the evidence in regard to the Trans-Canada Railway last year, I have been reading every book I could get upon that country for the last ten or fifteen years, and I am thoroughly com inc-ed, notwithstanding everything that can be said to the contrary, that the route from the mouth of the Saguenay through the country fifty miles south of James bay, north of Lake Winnipeg and through the Peace River valley would afford a railway that in three or four years must prove a commercial success. That is practically the route of the Trans-Canada Railway, and if that railway had been built the national status of Canada would have been settled, particularly if the country traversed by it turns out to be the valuable agricultural, mineral country that 1 suppose it to be. Then, it would put us in touch with Hudson bay. We have there one of the greatest inland oceans in the world, and if any man looks at the geography of Canada he must see there the possibility of an enormous amount of trade, because it is the greatest inland body of water outside of the Mediterranean, and it must have been put there to serve the highest purpose in connection with the development of this country. We must recollect that the information that has trickled down to Canada from that region has come largely through the Hudson Bay Company's officials, and wie must remember also that every official of the Hudson Bay Com-Mr. GOURLEY.
pany was charged upon his honour and upon his oath to misrepresent that country, to say that it was a frozen country and unfit for habitation ; otherwise, the 200 per cent dividends which the shareholders of that company received might not be paid any longer. A great deal of the information that we have to-day has come from some missionary or stranger whose mouth was not sealed and who had no interest in misrepresenting it. But, we have a great many stories about that country which will turn out to be just as ill-founded as some of the stories which were told about Manitoba and the country to the west. I heard just as lamentable stories about Manitoba and the west when the Canadian Pacific Railway was planned, as I have heard about the Hudson Bay Company. Now, I find that a very intelligent man toy the name of Colonel Church, has made a statement in regard to the route which I have advocated. I believe that he was associated in some way with the Trans-Canada project. He is a scholar and a student and from the fact that his writings are accepted by the ' North-western Review,' we must conclude that he is a very able and accomplished man. That man has studied the trade routes of Canada, and I want to read two or three lines from an article written by him, and in this connection I would ask hon. members of this House to read the ' Fortnightly Review ' for March. There is an article on the trade routes of Canada Which I am bound to say is the first thorough and systematic discussion of these trade routes that has been attempted. Col. Church says with reference to this Trans-Canada Railway ;
The Dominion has reached a point in its growth where it requires a commercial anil political backbone ; but Lake Winnipeg dominates the situation ; and if all the future products of the North-west .have to move south, to round that sheet of water before they can be sent eastward, the bulk of them will seek the Atlantic ports of the United States, rather than turn again to the east and north to reach the ocean. Hence, Lake Winnipeg must be flanked on the north by a railway through the heart of the country.
That is tbe difficulty I find in supporting this scheme, and tliat is the difficulty these people of the maritime provinces find. Lake Winnipeg, as large as Lake Superior, 260 miles long lying north and south, is right across the track of all the transportation routes in Canada, east and'west. The south end of that lake lies 65 miles from the American border, and into that narrow strip you must crowd all your transcontinental railways, if you run them south of Lake Winnipeg. As a consequence, our country could be broken up at any moment. A great army from the other side could occupy that sixty-five miles of territory, take control of our railways, and our country would be cut in two and we would be conquered in detail.


Henry Robert Emmerson: How does the scheme of the leader of the opposition obviate that difficulty ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am giving reasons why I cannot vote for the scheme of the government, which proposes to cast on the people an enormous expenditure for a great transcontinental railway that will not answer a high national purpose. I am showing that the proposition of the government is unscientific and uu-national, and that not a man of you should support it. 1 will deal with the proposition of the leader of the opposition later, but in the meantime, notwithstanding the speeches of the bon. gentlemen from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) and Hants (Mr. Russell) and Annapolis (Mr. Wade), I will undertake to say that they do not represent the feeling of the people of Nova Scotia, because I find that in that province there is universal opposition to this scheme, because it runs south of Lake Winnipeg. We believe in the maritime provinces that we never can get any transportation from the west unless we can get a railway north of Lake Winnipeg. In dealing with this matter, I take my stand on the highest national lines. Even suppose we have ten transcontinental railways in that narrow strip south of Lake Winnipeg, an army could march in there and take these railways and conquer us in detail, as I have stated before. I tell these gentlemen opposite from the maritime provinces, that unless they desert the position they have taken on this question, the people of the maritime provinces will call them to account for misrepresenting their sentiments. These gentlemen talk about the congestion of traffic. Why, if you look at the map of Manitoba, around Winnipeg, it strikes me that there is a congestion of railways in that district, and not a congestion of traffic. The whole system of railway development in that country has been unscientific, and this railway that the government is now proposing is" the most unscientific of all, because it takes the products of the west south of Lake Winnipeg and into the dangerous region of Lake Superior, whence we never can hope to get them to the maritime provinces. . I will agree that there is need for another transcontinental railway. I have argued that in Nova Scotia, and my voice is the same in Nova Scotia as it is in Quebec, as it is iu Ontario, as it is in the west, and as it is all over Canada. I am not as fortunate as lion, gentlemen opposite .who possess a voice for Quebec, a voice for Ontario, and a voice for the west. I have one voice for all Canada. I want another transcontinental railway, but I say that that railway should be laid upon lines that are highly national, and that are intended to make of Canada a nation. We must throw this railway north of Lake AVinuipeg, and we shall then have a depth of 400 miles and a length of 3,000 miles, upon which we can
rest for ever, upon which we. can have millions and millions of people, and being in the north we cannot dominate this whole continent. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that unless this railway is by the shortest possible route across the continent we can never dominate the trade of the Orient, and I say further, that the chief aim of commerce now is to endeavour to monopolize Oriental trade. I undertake to say that if we did get the trade of the east, as it is possible for us to get it, Canada within a few years would not only be a commercial power on this continent, but it would be the dominant power on this continent and the dominant commercial power of the world. AA'hat has been the history of the trade of the Orient. Every nation, from the dawn of time, which controlled the trade of the east, became the commercial, and the political, and the imperial mistress of the world.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear. hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Yes, men who know the history of the world will know that. Some people think that the growth of these nations was accidental, but the fact is that they were the creatures of their geographical position in relation to the trade of the Orient. They grew rich and powerful, and their history has come down to us. The first nation of which we have a record is Babylon. AVliat made Babylon great ?
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear. .


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Excuse me, I want to call your attention to the commercial history of the world. Babylon became great because the trade routes of the world at that time were commanded by Babylon. She dominated the trade of India and China ; she was the furthest nation west on the Tigres; the trade routes then did not extend to the Mediterranean ; they extended to Babylon, and she was the great entrepot of the east from India and Cathay. Babylon was as strong in her day as the United States is to-day, as England is to-day, and she owed her supremacy to her command of the trade routes of the world.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Yes, and if you are students you will know it. Then Babylon sank, and the trade extended to the Euphrates, and Nineveh became the great nation of the world. Then the populations of the world were going westward to Europe, and the trade passed to Tyre and Sidon, which became the great commercial centres of the world, as New York and Boston are to-day.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Tip those men who are unacquainted with the history of the worid this will appear strange; but the whole history of the world rests on the trade routes, and the whole history of Canada must
IlEVISEiD EDITION

rest on her trade routes. The great struggle going on in this world to-day is between England and the United States to keep the trade of the east. The country that will dominate the trade of the east, whether it be England or the United States, will be for the time being the mistress of the world. In the fifteenth century the 'whole world was attempting to tind its way to the east. Canada was discovered in an attempt to find a trade route to China. When Jacques Cartier came out from France and sailed up the St. Lawrence, he was not hunting for Canada ; he was hunting for a highway to India and Cathay, in order to dominate these trade routes. Therefore Canada is peculiarly dedicated by her history to a discovery of the proper trade routes of this continent. Cartier 400 years ago understood the trade drift of this country infinitely better than do the gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of this House. I have said that when Nineveh captured the trade routes from Babylon, Babylon fell and Nineveh grew. Then Tyre and Sidon rose and captured the trade routes. Then Alexander came along. He was a better commercial man than any lion, gentleman opposite, and he wanted to make his own little country, Greece, straight. He knocked over Persia, Nineveh and Babylon, and took possession of all the trade routes. Then he founded Alexandria. As he found that the populations of the world were filling up Spain and France and England, he turned the trade routes to Alexandria, and it grew to be a great city, while Tyre and Sidon declined and fell. Then the trade routes crossed the Mediterranean and came into the possession of Rome, and Rome became the mistress of the world. Greece occupied them, not as a country of Europe, but by virtue of her possession of Alexandria. After the fall of the Persian Empire, Alexandria and not Athens was really the capital of Greece. Then Rome captured the trade routes of the world, and Greece fell. In the fifth century Rome in turn went down. Then the trade routes were lost, and the dark ages began, and lasted from 500 till 1,500. But immediately the dark ages passed away, in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, Columbus and those other great explorers who were searching after the trade routes of the east, discovered this continent in the attempt. From that moment this continent became dedicated to the trade routes. What happened ? Genoa held them for a while, Spain for a while, then Holland, then France; and finally the trade routes were captured by England, and she has held them for 125 years.
But what is happening now ? For twenty years the people of the United States have been girding themselves to capture the trade of the east-because their statesmen and public men are students, and they know that if they can capture that trade of the east, they will have the wealth of the world,


Mr.   GOURLET@: which will give them power, and they will be masters of the sea and land. For the last twenty years the United States have been making the most tremendous exertions-dcing what V Establishing great ports at San Francisco and Seattle, and putting a fleet of steamers on the Pacific ocean. Now they are trying to build a canal, to cut the continent of America, so as all the more firmly to establish their trade routes to the east. Morgan is attempting to establish a syndicate to capture the trade of the Atlantic. The war familiarized them with the geography of their own country, and immediately after the war they began to build railroads until now they have 200,000 miles of railway cutting up their country in all directions and giving them the advantage of every trade route they possess, while we have been sitting by these hundred years, never taking a step towards developing the trade routes of Canada. The United States have an enormous advantage over us; at the same time, owing to their southern position on this continent, when we have anything like a scientific development of our trade routes, notwithstanding their enormous advantage of a hundred years start in the race, I believe the physical trend of this country is so strongly against them that even now we can put Canada in the position in which she would have been if we had been a competitor against them for all those years. That is, Canada has not been prejudiced by her long delay. It is for us now to look around, and say whether we are going to play this game out, or whether the United States is going to win on this continent. Because there is no donbt that the struggle in the United States to-day is to capture the trade of the east from'England, and trade of the east seems to be coming to this continent. Any man who sits down and notes the treud of the trade of the east, will find that even the Suez canal is not the dominant factor today in that trade, but that the trade of the east, instead of seeking its way towards England and Europe by the Suez canal, is coming to this continent either to San Francisco or Seattle or to our coast. If it comes to our coast, I want to say that we have an enormous advantage, both by sea and land routes, for capturing that trade. Now, then, Mr. Speaker, we propose, say, to dominate that trade. The United States are proposing to dominate it. The question comes, who has the better geographical position with reference to that trade ? Because geography will in the end settle it. The first question you ask is, where are the great markets which that trade seeks ? Suppose it comes to Canada, when it does come, is that trade to be taken north or south ? If it is to be taken north, then Canada has an enormous advantage because her situation is north. If South America were to be the entrepot for the trade of the east, then the United States would have an enormous advantage

from their physical position ; but when the trade routes are all north of Canada, all the advantage lies with us. If by a line from Port Simpson to the mouth of the Saguenay, or a branch to Quebec and across the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic ports, we can dominate that trade, that result would be worth all the expenditure necessary to attain it.
I want to give a few figures to show you that on both oceans, owing to our northern position, we have an enormous advantage over the United States. Supposing trade starts from Yokohama, take the Pacific ocean. From San Francisco to Yokohama is 4,530 and from Port Simpson to Yokohama is 3,810 miles. Suppose you started from Yokohama, you would have an advantage of 720 miles between Port Simpson and Sail 1 rancisco. Seven hundred and twenty miles, would, as a rule, settle any particular route, but we have an equal advantage on the Atlantic coast. Plymouth is supposed to be one of the coming ports of England, and from New York to Plymouth is 2,990 miles, from Halifax to Plymouth is 2,430 miles, so that on the Atlantic ocean we have a gain of 560 miles, and on the Pacific a gain of 770 miles, making on the two oceans a gain in favour of Port Simpson and Halifax over San Francisco and New York of 1,280 miles. I am very plased to be able to tell my hon. friend from Caribou (Mr. Gallilier) that his province, if he will help us to exploit a true national railway, will be one of the wealthiest of the world in ten or twenty years, provided you are able to dominate this trade of the east, oecause the whole wealth of the world has always followed that trade.
Then take the route from Quebec and compare it with the route from New York. From New York to Plymouth, the distance is 2,990 miles and from Quebec to Plymouth -.620 miles, so that you have a gain from Quebec of 370 miles besides a gain on the Pacific ocean of 720 miles, showing that the route by Quebec and Port Simpson is 1,050 miles shorter than by San Francisco and New York. These are the sea routes. If we can shorten the land routes 200 or 300 miles, then we have the 1,400 miles which Sir Sandford Fleming says is the true advantage Canada has in her trade routes over the trade routes of the United States. If we have that advantage, the United States cannot contend successfully, against that enormous distance of 1,400 miles, provided we exploit our advantages, but heretofore the United States have found ours a barren country and no matter what their disadvantages were, they had no competition and therefore prevailed.
The Japan current also is fighting for Canada. All the currents of the ocean seem to be fighting for this northern country. The Japan current takes the ships and lands them almost opposite Port Simpson. A ship from San Francisco has to go to Port 325*
Simpson to get out of the Japan current. All the currents of the ocean give Canada an immense superiority over the other trade routes on this continent.
The reason 1 oppose this railway is that on leaving Port Simpson you have unnecessarily dragged it away out of its natural course, GOO miles from the north, away down around Lake Winnipeg, and then take it away back to Moncton. You give this railway a circuitous route when there is a straight line from Port Simpson to the Saguenay, which would give you a route three hundred miles shorter. That defect prevents your line from being a national one, and makes it a provincial line marked by political advantages and local considerations of every character. For instance, thf reason it was located around the south end of Lake Winnipeg is because the votes are there, but when we are asked to spend $100,000,000 to $200,000,000, we should leave these local considerations out of view and make a great national line. ' if these peo-pie want additional local railways, let them say so, and I will vote to give them those railways. I voted for the Mann & Mackenzie scheme, and am prepared to vote for half a dozen other railways, but I shall not vote to mar a great national highway by making it take this circuitous route.
I oppose this scheme because it is fatally marred by its location. I was proceeding to showr what the Trans-Canada scheme would perform. From Port Simpson to Quebec is 2,927 miles. From Port Simpson to Chicoutimi is 2,705 miles, so that by taking it down to Chicoutimi, you would save 222 miles even over Quebec. From Halifax to Vancouver via the Canadian Pacific Railway is 3,753 miles and from Halifax to Port Simpson via the Trans-Canada is 3,505 miles, or a saving of 248 miles. Consequently the whole saving of distance by the trans-Canada, if it went to Chicoutimi, would be 340 miles. That added do the enormous advantage we have by the sea, practically gives the control to Canada. We have 1,280 miles by sea of an advantage, and 340 by land, which gives a saving over the distance of 1,400 miles, which Sir Sand-ford Fleming says would give us the advantage.
But I cannot support a line at this time in our history which does not give us a national highway in every sense of the term. Let us go from Yokohama to Port Simpson by the Trans-Canada. I want to " compare the Trans-Canada with the Canadian Pacific Railway, afid the line from the United States. The Canadian Pacific Railway would be at an enormous disadvantage compared with the Trans-Canada. From Port Simpson to Yokohama, the distance is 3,810 miles. From Halifax to Port Simpson it is 3,505 miles, and from Halifax to Plymouth is 2.430 miles. That would make a total of 9,700 miles from Yokohama to Plymouth via the Trans-Canada, compared

with 10,423 miles via the Canadian Pacific Railway, namely :
Miles.
From Yokohama to Vancouver	 4,240
From Vancouver to Halifax	 3,753
From Halifax to Plymouth	 2,430
10,423
-making a saving in favour of the Trans-Canada route of 678 miles.
These are the reasons which have induced me reluctantly to oppose this resolution. 1 thought at one time, until I examined it thoroughly, that I would have to ask my friends to excuse me. I am in favour of railways and the development of Canada, and in our party we have individual ojiin-ions and are not supposed to be slaves. I thought that if this scheme of the government provided a practicable solution of the transportation question that 1 would have had to ask my friends to excuse me, if I voted for it, because the question was a national and not a political one. But upon examination of the question, I am bound to say that this railway is not designed from national but from political ideas.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will my hon. friend explain about the opposition's proposal ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: As 1 am dealing with yours, just now, you will excuse me if I continue. When I have finished with your proposal I shall be happy to deal with the other. You should not manifest this hurry. No doubt, you think, because I am de molishing your proposition so successfully, I can do better than you have done in demolishing that of the opposition. Now, gentlemen-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order. Address the Chair.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, these hon. gentlemen seeing that I am a young hand at addressing this House, are trying to put me out. Now, I have compared the Trans-Canada route with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I find a difference of 678 miles in favour of the Trans-Canada. Let me compare it with some of the American routes. From Yokohama to San Francisco is 4,530 miles. From San-Francisco to New York, via Chicago, which is their shortest commercial route, is 3,349 miles; from New York to Plymouth is 2,930 miles. Here is a total of 10,869 miles from Yokohama to Plymouth, through the United States by way of -San Francisco and New York. The Trans-Canada has a distance of 9,745 miles, or a difference in favour of the Trans-Canada of 1,124 miles. That gives us dominance and absolute control of the trade of the Orient. The Americans know that we have the advantage, I have friends on the Pacific coast, who tell me : ' You Canadians have the advantage ; why don't you use it ?' In San Francisco and in Seattle they know that we have the advantage but they trust to the general sleepiness of Canada to save them. But, I am endeavouring to wake up the people of Canada, and to wake up the hon. gentlemen opposite. It is not toq late yet. Let no pride of opinion stand in the way of great national interests.	When the leader of the hon.
gentlemen opposite submitted this scheme I must say he appealed to my sentiments, and I congratulate him on the way he put his scheme. If he had had the real thing to deliver to us, I would have said he was a great statesman and knew the interests and needs of Canada. But when I examined this thing, and found it was a gold brick, I said to myself: When we appeal to these gentlemen, they will go to their leaders, and will ask them to take time, to mature this scheme more carefully. Let them get Cox to wait. A gentleman the other day said to me :	' Do you
know that the Grits have a new god to worship, a new trinity ?' I said, ' I did not know. What is it ?'	' Time, tide and Cox.'
I think the hon. gentleman from Pontiac (Mr. Murray) who looks like a distinguished divine in Nova Scotia, if he were the man he resembles, might define that trinity and tell us how to climax it, tqjl us whether it should be time, tide and Cox ; Cox, time and tide, or what else. Perhaps they would make a sandwich of it with time and tide inside, and Cox on top and bottom. It looks to be as hard to get Cox to wait as to get time and tide to wait. But he must be a cruel god if he will not listen to the plealings of his devotees and wait for a little time. Why, even the heaven god Juggernaut waited on one occasion. And there is this similarity between the pagan god and Cox, that Juggernaut rides in a car and so does Cox. When you follow out this ecclesiastical idea, there is infinite amusement in it. We should never have understood the idea of the trinity had it not been for the work of a strong mind like St. Athanasius, who gave us the idea of trinity in unity and unity in trinity. The god of hon. gentlemen opposite seems to be trinity-Cox and unity and Cox, and being of one substance with Cox. But the resemblance is to the pagan god Juggernaut. He is a cruel god and rides in his car, over his prostrate devotees, and destroys them. And Cox will put these hon. gentlemen in such a position that the people will grind them up. Now, all we ask is that hon. gentlemen opposite should get this cruel Cox of theirs to wait. They have not gone too far; let them get him to wait until the best information with regard to this scheme can he collected. And if this is done. I feel confident, the Trans-Canada route will be adopted. Some hon. gentleman stood with me in the advocacy of the Trans-Canada route, nud I am going to watch these gentlemen iii this debate. I have heard that a number were solicitous about the way I would vote. I happened to have expressed my mind on


Seymour Eugene Gourley: tills question six months ago. I was in Quebec and through Nova Scotia and I told the people that I objected to the present transcontinental lines because they were unnecessarily long and would not give Canada the place she should occupy in relation to the transcontinental business, and we must- do better. I favoured the trans-Canada route then, and I stand to it still. But hon. gentlemen who were with me then, I find, In some mysterious manner, have been converted to this scheme of hon. gentlemen ox>-posite. Six months ago in Quebec, I said that the Grand Trunk should not be allowed to interfere in this transcontinental system, because, by their interest in Canada and the United States, they were anchored in an attitude hostile to the great transcontinental route In Canada. So, I have only one voice for Nova Scotia, for this House and for all Canada. I wish to show that, in addition to the enormous advantages that are to be gained from the shortness of the route, the pass leading to Port Simpson is the best pass on the continent. Nature itself. in throwing down these rocks, and levelling that mighty hill, indicates that she intended that the trade of the Orient should cross that spot. The Peace river pass, through which the line goes to Port Simpson, is 2,000 feet high. The next pass to the south is the Pine river pass, which is 2,600 feet high. The Trans-Canada propose to take the Peace river pass. See what the Canadian Pacific Railway has to climb- 5,285 feet. Imagine the enormous difficulty to a railway of climbing that height as compared to one that rises only 2,000 feet. That is the determining factor in a transcontinental railway to carry the freight of the east. The Great Northern has to climb 5,202 feet and the Northern Pacific 5,550 feet. Another railway, the Union Pacific, has to climb 8.247 feet, and then there is a railway, the Denver and Rio Grande, that has to climb 10,423 feet. Thus the trend of the mountains in Canada points to the domination of Canada and to domination of the trade routes of Canada. At Port Simpson for the first time you get an elevation of only 2,000 feet, and as the Rocky mountains go south down to the Rio Grande, the rise to 10,000 feet. Consequently, every railway in the United States is absolutely handicapped in comparison with the railways of Canada. On all grounds, on the ground of the passes, on the ground of the shortness of the route across the ocean, the advantage is in favour of Canada, if this government will adopt a truly national line, and I would commend this to the study of the people of British Columbia. I must compliment the hon. gentleman from Burrard (Mr. Macplier-son), who spoke on this question the other day. He evidently has been studying this problem and knows something about the trade of the Orient, and he sees the splendid outlook in that direction. I advise hon.
gentlemen from British Columbia to study this question and when we come to understand our true geography and the advantages that we have we will not for one hour put up with a railway that does not follow the true lines of national policy in this country. You can debate this policy of the government as much as you like, and the more it is discussed, as far as I see it, the more objectionable, the more absolutely opposed to the great interests of Canada does it become. The Prime Minister puts this railway on the national ground. If he had put it on provincial grounds and said : I am building a great ocean to ocean vote-catcher ; I intend to spend $200,000,000 to get a great ocean to ocean vote-catcher ; I want votes from end to end of this Dominion and believe this will get them -if he had based it on that ground, I would say that was a bold, splendid policy, and it would give a splendid opportunity to attack him, but when he clothes this project in the mantle of the national life of Canada, I say that was wrong unless he is able to produce the article and show in the clearest manner that this line will advance in- the highest sense the true interests of Canada. The route indicated here is a haphazard route. It goes along almost the top of the height of land between Hudson's bay and Lake Superior. The great slope of that land is towards the Hudson's bay ; it is a great alluvial slope which becomes richer as it gets nearer to Hudson's bay, as a matter of course, because the alluvial soil is carried down. But their line does not go near that richer soil. This line should be about 200 miles north of Lake Nepigon, but instead of that it hugs it just at the point where the land is the least fertile. The government have taken the worst route on this continent for the building of a railway intended to develop an agricultural or timber country. If the line had been placed on the gentle slope of those magnificent rivers flowing into the Hudson's bay. it would have been very much better. The hon. member for North Norfolk thought that people did not know anything about the Nottawa river. In Nova Scotia the little girls in the kindergartens will tell the hon. gentleman about these rivers, and I am inclined to think that the hon. member for North Norfolk should take a kindergarten course, because he will then know the nature of the resources of Canada. If a line is to be built to develop the agricultural resources of this country, it should be built, as I have said, 200 miles- north of Lake Nepigon. May I quote for one moment from the ' Fortnightly Review,' for March. I may say that no man can gain access to the columns of the ' Fortnightly Review ' unless he is solid : you will find the writings of none but the most capable men there, and I would ask every hon. member to read

this article, "which is the most accomplished exposition of the routes of Canada that I have seen. This writer says :
The Trans-Canada Railway will be one of llie grandest inter-oceanic lines on the continent. It will take an almost direct course from Quebec to the northern end of Rake Winnipeg, passing about 100 miles to the south cf James bay, with which it will have a branch connection. From Lake Winnipeg, still following a very direct route, it will cross a low depression in the Rocky Mountain range, at the Pine liver or Peace river pass, and reach the Pacific cc.ast of British Columbia at Port Simpson. Its length will be about 2,830 miles, or from 250 to 550 miles less distance between the two oceans than the other Pacific railways. Nature seems to have done everything possible to facilitate the construction of such a line : very easy gradients and curves of great radius arc its characteristic features, and it will cross the mountains at an elevation above sea-level one-half that of any other Pacific railway north of Mexico. Its eastern termini, Quebec on the St. Lawrence, and Chicoutimi on the Saguenay, are accessible to ships of any draught, wiiile Port Simpson, open the entire year, is admirably adapted to be the terminus of such a trade route, and Is 450 miles nearer than Vancouver is to Yokohama.
I cannot understand why the Prime Minister, when he had the mo^t ample evidence of the splendid character of a line like this, should allow the Grand Trunk to build this line. The lion. Prime Minister when he introduced this scheme vaunted the connection of the Grand Trunk with it. In Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces the Grand Trunk is regarded as the evil genius of this scheme. We in the maritime provinces want to have nothing to do with the Grand Trunk. The Grand Trunk wanted to get into the wheat fields of the west in order to hitch a portion of the grain trade on its system in eastern Canada and to haul it to Portland, and the Prime Minister was not strong enough to resist its influence because the Grand Trunk Railway, I presume had numerous votes all over the country to deliver to the government.
I shall read now from a report of Mr. A. E. Doueet, chief engineer of the Trans-Canada Railway, whom I had the pleasure of meeting, and who struck me as a student and a scholar. He says :


Mr.  C. E.@: 
Seymour Eugene Gourley: A most favourable bridge site has been located across the Nelson river

He is speaking now of the country north of Lake Winnipeg, which has been denounced by some gentlemen-and we have an unfortunate and absurd habit in this country of declaring that any part of the country which we do not know is of no value-and this gentleman tells us that his country is a good country, open for civilization immediately upon the construction of a railway.
A most favourable bridge site has been located across the Nelson river, the outlet of Lake Winnipeg, and advantage has been taken of Warren's Island to reduce the length of the bridge.
Mr. Perry reports that, contrary to the. general impression, he found good agricultural land to the east and west of the north end of Lake Winnipeg, also plenty of spruce and tamarack, with numerous waterfalls adjacent, for the generation of power. The fisheries of the lake are very important, and gold-bearing quartz and numerous veins of iron ore have been found in the vicinity. The snowfall in this region was so light that Mr. Perry and his parties were able to work without snow'shoes, and but one day wras lost due to unfavourable weather. The work upon this part of the line will he as light as prairie work. To the east of Nelson river crossing, it was found possible to secure a tangent of one hundred miles, an engineering feature without precedent ; and to the west of the crossing we have one tangent of forty miles. Terminal facilities have been secured at the north end of the lake, which will enable us to tap navigation on Winnipeg lake, and afford us an easy means of communication with Winnipeg.
There is a line which possesses 4-foot grades, and which has a tangent of 100 miles. We have a very fertile country there and under these circumstances what is the use of hon. gentlemen putting up the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) to labour with a grade of 21 feet to the mile on the route proposed by the government when this line offers the advantages not only of a local line to open up this country, but also of a through line of national importance ? The chief engineer says :
It will be at once apparent that no difficulties of a serious nature, from a topographical point of view, exist on the location chosen for the main line of the Trans-Canada Railway, and that with branch lines judiciously laid out at various points a great portion of the northern part of the Dominion will be tapped and developed, and the riches of its soil and forests be brought within easy reach of the large population which it is confidently expected the construction of the Trans-Canada Railway will cause to flow into this rich heritage of the Canadian people. . . .
6. That the lands and the timber will assure leaving out the minerals, indications of which are to be seen at various points along the line, the land and forests alone will support millions of people in a prosperous and comfortable state	 [DOT]
From this report it will be seen that the country through which the Trans-Canada Railway will be located, is sufficiently well known to state definitely :
103S1

1.	That no obstacles of a serious nature, as regards construction, exist throughout the whole route.
2.	That the amount of rock work is inconsiderable.
3.	That the gradients will be easy as the country is so level.
4.	That the soil, composed mostly of clay or of clay formation, is fit for agriculture for the greater part of the distance.
5.	That there are valuable areas of timber lands on the route.
6.	That the lands and the timber will assume to the railway an immediate return in produce, lumber and minerals.
I think the House at the present time would say that it would he of enormous advantage to have that country opened up even apart from this being the line of shortest transportation. But, further let me read from a statement by Sir Sandford Fleming whose attention was called to this proposed route. He says :
A new national railway, should, in my judgment, begin at the Quebec bridge, now building, where it would form a direct connection with the Intercolonial and it should extend from Quebec by the most direct route to Port Simpson on the Pacific. From what 1 know of the general character of the greater part of the intervening distance, I believe a line with splendid engineering features could, with ordinary care be secured. It would pass away to the north of the rugged shores of Lakes Huron, Superior, Nepigon, and Winnipeg, through a vast region reported generally of alluvial soil, with abundance of wood and water.
He says further :
I have already expressed my doubts as to the wisdom or expediency of proceeding in a haphazard way to establish a new transcontinental railway. I regard the shortest line obtainable between^ the tide-waters of the two oceans as quite long enough. For that reason and other cogent reasons I would advocate the most favourable route which can be had between the port of Quebec and Port Simpson for a new Dominion Grand Trunk line, and at the same time to have in view the establishment of railway service with all desirable points by branches judiciously laid out.
When the day arrives to open the railway as a through route it will be found to possess advantages, in respect to distances, as compared with the route via San Francisco and New York. From Yokohama to Liverpool the passage across the Pacific Ocean would be 605 and across the Atlantic 195 nautical miles less. While the land distance would be 502 statute miles less, making a total saving on the whole distance of about 1,423 statute miles. Regarding simply from a Canadian standpoint, I cannot conceive any public undertaking which would better meet the wants of the new Dominion, throughout its whole extent. I rejoice to know that it has so soon in Canadian history been brought up for serious consideration.
At that time Sir Sandford Fleming believed that the government and the people were prepared to adopt the shortest route. He did not assume that the route would he deflected and that the Trans-Canada railway would, he carried away down south
of Lake Winnipeg which disfigures the whole scheme from a national standpoint. Sir William Van Horne, who spoke of this railway, says :
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 Pcifie 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.
He says that the Trans-Canada railway will not Interfere in any way with the Canadian Pacific Railway and that it has an excellent chance of being a financial success. If I can show that this Trans-Canada railway not only develops Canada in the highest degree, but that it has a reasonable chance of financial success, then I am hound to reject the scheme proposed by the government, because we cannot be justified in assuming that it would ever pay In a financial sense within a reasonable number of years. I have heard some hon. gentleman attack the bargain made by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Do these hon. gentlemen imagine that the people of Canada are not students? We have here a bargain which is at least ten times worse than the bargain made with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not care very much If this is a successful bargain from the standpoint of the money return It brings in If it would answer the purpose, because, I believe that if we could get the trade of the east for five or ten years it would sweep away a dozen national debts in Canada. The trade of the Orient would enrich the cities, bring prosperity to the people, create a large national life and build up great ports like New York on the Pacific ocean. There is a writer in the ' Fortnightly Review ' for March, 1903, who says :
A railway traversing the heart of the Dominion of Canada would not only harmonize and give stability to all its varied forms of industry and commercial movement, but confer upon it strategic advantages of a high order. It would also be the natural British answer to the Trans-Siberia Railway ; but, apart from the military aspect of such a line, its advantages as a through trade route between Europe and the Orient, due to Its technical -features and deepwater termini, are matchless. It should be possible to ship goods over it, between England and Japan and China, cheaper and much quicker than by any other route, even that via Suez.
That is the judgment, of an expert who says that this route would give Canada as great an advantage as that afforded by the Suez canal. The only dispute about trade would be as to how much we were

going to get. If the Suez canal does not carry! the whole thing it will come over to Canada ; therefore, we would be possessed of a trade which has made all nations from Babylon down the dominant powers, while they have possessed that trade. I am glad that the hon. gentleman from British Columbia is listening to this picture of the future grandeur of his province. If this line were thrown north of Lake Winnipeg, a branch from Winnipeg would relieve the congestion much more rapidly than the building of a railway in the direction now proposed. It is proposed to put the headquarters of this line at Winnipeg, and then to go north to the Peace river country, 600 miles away, to bring the wheat to Winnipeg. It is said that tliis will relieve the congestion, but it would be much more sensible to go north of Lake Winnipeg, and to take the wheat to Canadian ports for shipment. I understand that the Canadian Northern Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, with the additions that are being made to them, are in a position to cope with the trade of Manitoba, provided the wheat from the northern country is shipped by railway to the Saguenay and not brought down to further congest Winnipeg. I hold my mind perfectly open with reference to grain transportation, for within 16 years I have seen the freight rates on railways cut in half. I am prepared for further reduction in the future, and with reference to the trans-Canada I am bound to say that had they got their charter, they would have solved the transportation difficulty and the freight rate question. In their petition to the government these able men who were promoting the Trans-Canada Railway, offered to carry wheat from any point on their line in the province of Manitoba to the point of ocean shipment at Chicoutimi for nine cents a bushel, which is seven cents less than the present ocean rate to the sea-board. This offer was made by competent men who are engaged in the transportation business and they must have had some idea of what they were doing when they offered this nine cent rate. Let me ask, if the proposition of the government is the best that could be made from a financial point of view ? When the Canadian Northern Railway came here for a guarantee of their bonds, I thought that was a very proper way of assisting a national highway, because I fancied that the time had come when railway promoters could find portions of this country where a railway would pay, even if built with the money of its promoters without the as-istance of the government. And so, when the Canadian Northern Railway asked for a guarantee, I thought that a new era of railway construction in Canada had arrived. Gentlemen on the other side of the House boasted then that they could get a better bargain than could the Conservative government. Tlie Trans-Canada people were convinced that the time had arrived when Mr. GOURLEY.
very little assistance would be given by a Canadian government to a transcontinental railway. I am informed by credible authority, that the capitalists from New York and London who were a.t the back of the Trans-Canada scheme, would have been able to build that road had their proposition been accepted by the government. But why the Trans-Canada should have been thrown over and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, with all Its financial responsibilities assumed by the government, is something that I cannot understand. In the petition presented to the government by the promoters of the Trans-Canada railway, the following statement is made :	[DOT]
The great financial success achieved by the Canadian Pacific Railway has rendered it much easier to secure capital for such an undertaking as this than it was twenty years ago, and the project should not have the antagonism of the capital interested in the Canadian Pacific Railway, as it must be beneficial to that road by putting population into the section of the country between the two lines.
I think that prospectus was the origin of the letter of Sir William Van Horne, who said that he had no objection to the trans-Canada line. Further on the petition says :
If the Dominion government will grant to us a subsidy of $6,400 per mile it is believed that a financial basis would be established which would secure the necessary capital to carry out this most important undertaking which will make Canada a solid country with great agricultural resources, instead of a fringe of settlements subject as it is now, to the good will from day to day of our powerful neighbours to the south.
Here was an offer from the Trans-Canada railway to build this line for $6,400 per mile in addition to a land grant from the Dominion government where it passed through Dominion lands, to the same extent as promised by the provincial government, namely 20,000 acres per mile. For this the Trans-Canada offered advantages which never were offered before by any other railway company. They offered to construct the entire road with steel rails and steel bridges all manufactured in Canada, and contrast that with the proposition with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as to the use of Canadian manufactures and goods on that railway. Then the Trans-Canada offered further :
To give free transportation from Quebec to any point on Its line for all immigrants and bona fide settlers and their effects and to carry wheat from all points on their line in the province of Manitoba to the ocean steamer at Chicoutimi or Quebec, for 9 cents per bushel or for 7 cents less per bushel than present freight rates.
The Trans-Canada was estimated at 2,735 miles from Chicoutimi to Port Simpson, and at $6,400 per mile, that would be equal to $17,312,000. Then there would be the branch to Quebec of 126 miles, and at the same subsidy it would cost us $808,000. The

Trans-Canada only asked for $18,120,000 of subsidy to build and equip their line. Why was that proposition turned down for such an atrocious financial scheme as the government now submits to us ? Then if the Trans-Canada were extended to Moncton it would be 381 miles longer, and that at $6,400 per mile would amount to $2,438,000, so that the entire cash subsidy they required from Moncton to Port Simpson would be $20,500,000.
Then, of course, they wanted a land subsidy as far as the government of Canada owned the land. This railway was to go largely through the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and probably there were not more than 1,000 miles of Dominion lands through which this road would go. Suppose it got a subsidy of 20,000 acres a mile, that would be less than 25,000 acres. Well, I will undertake to say that the giving of land to the Trans-Canada Railway in that route would be one of the best investments Canada could make. I do not believe in now giving land for railroads in the old settled parts of Manitoba and the North-west; but in the case of the Trans-Canada, which was intended to open up an entirely new country, I believe it would be in the interest of Canada to give 25,000,000 acres of land to that company for the purpose of enabling them to build the line and thus inaugurate settlement; because they would do exactly what the Canadian Pacific Railway did- organize themselves into a great immigration agency, scour Europe, and bring millions of people into that country. Then we would have every alternate block of soil, warranted to recoup us for every dollar we gave to the company. When I heard these propositions in reference to building a great transcontinental line, I thought we were to have a proposition of the nature of Trans-Canada Railway. I thought the time had come when we should get a Trans-Canada Railway built for $15,000,000 or $20,000,000; and I would rather give a company that sum of money, with an assurance that the railway would be built, than to enter on all these guarantees which are involved in the scheme of the government. Consequents I think the government should have accepted that policy, not only in the interest of the proper location of a transcontinental line, but also in the interest of the finances of Canada.
Now, I have dealt with your proposition from a national standpoint. I find it fatal financially, bad financially, and bad on the ground that the railway is located south of Lake Winnipeg. I want to show you that the whole maritime provinces have debated this subject and have instructed me to oppose this railway, on the ground that it has been located south of Lake Winnipeg. We in Nova Scotia know the geography of that country, and we have come to the conclusion that any line that brings its traffic down to Lake Winnipeg, places it in such
imminent danger of the great American commerce on the lake, that we do not expect to see one pound of it in the maritime provinces. Therefore last summer, when the railway meetings were called in Nova Scotia, and this discussion came along, we all settled on that policy. My hon. friend from Chicoutimi (Mr. Girard) came down to Nova Scotia, we were delighted to see and hear him, and he heard the people of Nova Scotia declaring for a line north of Lake Winnipeg; and therefore X expect him to support us in our hour of trial. I want all the other gentlemen who attended those meetings in Nova Scotia also to stand up and vote with me on this question; I shall be shocked if they do not do so.
I will state briefly the objections which we have to this route. That it does not follow the shortest route; that it unduly lengthens the route; that it runs counter to the physical and geographical features of Canada; that it carries wheat and other products from points between 400 and COO miles north of the boundary down to Winnipeg, or 45 miles from the American territory. From this poiut it is in danger from Minneapolis, the American fleet on the lakes, and New York and Buffalo, and, if it reaches Montreal, then, of Boston and Portland. So that we believe we have no chance while the trade is carried south of r,ake Winnipeg. That is the fatal mistake of the Grand Trunk Pacific so far as we in the maritme provinces are concerned. People are studying our trade routes, and I study the matter historically. I cut out of a paper the other day :
In the embarking of Canadian products at the head of Lake Superior, for water transportation, the shipper at once enters into competition with the powerful commercial expansion of the United States on the great lakes, and he stands but a ridiculous chance in the rivalry. If the Canadian Pacific Railway is able to divert a certain quantity of wheat from this route, overland to Montreal, again it largely drafts into, the United States, thus showing how thoroughly the latter controls the position from whatever point it is analysed.
So strangers seem to know our difficulties and yet the Prime Minister and the government of this country do not really understand the great trade routes of this country, and the necessity of preserving the maritime provinces from the fatal mistake in reference to this railway. The Minister of Finance read a resolution from Truro the other day. I am sorry the hon. gentleman did not state correctly the facts. That resolution had reference to a railway built thirteen or fourteen years ago; when we did not understand the trade routes, and when we were glad to get any kind of a railway down there. But it is different to-day. I want to say that every board of trade of Nova Scotia has passed a resolution condemning this railroad. Read the resolution passed by the Board of Trade of Halifax on the 3rd

of November, 1902, and see bow clearly they understand this question :
Whereas the transportation facilities of any country are a most important factor in the development of its industries and commerce and whereas the Halifax Board of Trade is of the opinion that the time has arrived when another Canadian transcontinental railway should be constructed and wjiereas a line from Quebec north of Lake Winnipeg to Port Simpson would open up an immense area of fertile lands in the north-west province the shortest route from the Atlantic to the Pacific entirely on Canadian territory and serve the best interests of the empire from a military standpoint and whereas the route proposed by the Trans-Canada Railway Company between Quebec and Port Simpson should serve the interests of the maritime provinces better than any other established or projected route, therefore resolved, that the federal government be asked to aid in the construction of such a line enforcing stringent conditions that will ensure the entire traffic throughout Canadian ports both summer and winter.
That Is the declaration of the Board of Trade of Halifax, a declaration which gentlemen representing the business interests not only of Halifax but of Nova Scotia should stand by and support.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N. S.) Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Does he pretend to be the mouthpiece of the public opinion of the province of Nova Scotia 'l
Mr. GOURLEY', No, but I am one-eight-eentli of it. I am willing to make a fair division of it with the hon. gentleman ; but I am reading now the opinion of the business men of Halifax as expressed through their town council, their board of trade, and their public officers who assembled and discussed this question. But they command me, as they command the hon. gentleman, and I will obey them. I hope the hon. gentleman will also obey their voice. If lie does not, he will suffer when he goes before the electors. Let him come with me, and not obey the voice of a government that has done wrong. Let him come with me, and let us vote together in the interest of the maritime provinces. So that you see I have no advantages and the other gentlemen will find that they have none when the day of reckoning comes. On the 19th of February the St. John Board of Trade discussed the whole question. The public men of Nova Scotia the Hon. Joseph Howe and Sir Charles Tapper induced us to go into confederation by predicting that Halifax was going to be a great harbour, the depot port of North America. Well, we have been waiting a long time for the fulfilment of that prediction. When the Intercolonial Railway was built we thought the day liad come when Halifax would be the wharf of Canada. AVhen the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, we thought it was coming and when the canals were deepened we thought it was sure to come, was too sure to come, but we were continually Mr. GOURLEY,
doomed to disappointment we found that the whole trade of the country was being taken south for the benefit of the people of Ontario and Montreal and while that state of things continued we knew that we would never see the trade which liad been promised ns. Therefore we in the maritime provinces desire that a railway should be built north of Lake Winnipeg to connect with the maritime provinces, because until that was done it would be idle for us to look for any of these great benefits which have been promised to us on joining the confederation. Let me read you the resolution of the Board of Trade of St. John to show How thoroughly the business men in Nova Scotia understand the whole situation :
That the St. John Board of Trade, having already expressed the opinion that the next transcontinental railway to be built in Canada, should be an extension by the government of the Intercolonial Railway

Where is the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), who was so anxious for some argument in support of the policy of the leader of the opposition ? He will find It in this resolution of the board of trade of his largest city. They believe that the extension of the Intercolonial Railway is the proper policy, and that is the policy of the leader of the opposition :
-from Montreal to the Pacific coast and having since heard the views of the promoters of the Trans-Canada Railway Company and the opinion of Sir Sandford Fleming approving of the construction of the transcontinental line by government, but favouring such extension being built by the most direct line from the new bridge at Quebec to Port Simpson as being the shortest line from ocean to ocean, hereby reaffirms the resolutions already passed by the board and is of opinion that the inability of the present railway system to move the enormous and rapidly increasing crops of the North-west, and the rapid influx of new settlers into this country will amply justify the government at no very distant period in building the proposed railway as a public work.
But the board is further of opinion that in the event of parliament being unwilling to undertake the construction of such extension from Montreal to the Pacific coast, as a public work of the Dominion, the more northerly line now proposed from Quebec to Port Simpson offers better advantages to the country than any of the other suggested lines.
And further that the proposals for any transcontinental line should contain the distinct provisions for the extension of such line through the maritime provinces to the winter seaports in those provinces and that rigid guarantee should be exacted that only Canadian seaports should he used both in winter and summer time.
That covers the whole ground. I was sorry the Minister of Finance was not in when I read the resolution of the Halifax Board of Trade which is a recent resolution.
I propose to read another recent one from Truro and I shall do so because the hon. geutleman read a very old one of thirteen or fourteen years ago, when we had altogether

different notions about tlie transportation routes. Here is tlie resolution of the Board of Trade of North Sydney passed on the oth May last :
That the principle of federal subsidies to railway lines can only he justified on a national system that would cheapen transportation and facilitate ocean transit through Canadian ports only.
That for a short transcontinental line tjie short track and easy grades between Quebec and Port Simpson, B.C., as indicated in the plans of the Trans-Canada Company should recommend the route to the favourable consideration of the government and parliament.
For these reasons this board is of the opinion that if the government favour the building of another transcontinental railway, the line projected by the Trans-Canada Railway Company would best serve the interests of the Dominion as in addition to its favourable condition its location would involve the sole use of Canadian terminal ports.
And further in the interests of the whole country provision should be made for the extension of the short lino through the maritime provinces to a first-class port on the eastern sea-board of Canada.
I condemn the government for attempting to grapple with the great transcontinental line and then stopping at Moncton. That is one of the fatal defects of this scheme. I find that tlie board of trade of the city of Quebec dealt with the matter very intelligently. They said :
That for these reasons, and in view of the paramount national importance of this question, the Quebec Board of Trade would earnestly recommend the government before selecting any route to submit the question to a commission of eminent "engineers so that the best line may be selected.
That this board is of opinion that no charter should be granted by parliament for any additional transcontinental lines, or for any railways to carry the produce of the interior to the sea-board, without the most careful consideration, and that in any transcontinental charter hereafter granted the following conditions should be rigorously exacted
1.	That such new line should be the shortest possible from ocean to ocean, and should run by the most level route obtainable so as to ensure favourable grades and enable the western farmer to obtain lower freight rates on grain.
2.	That the location selected and the conditions to be imposed by parliament should be such as to compel "the shipment of the goods exported seaward by such railway to be by St. Lawrence ports in summer and maritime province ports in winter.
Here is a great board of trade composed of the most prominent business men who say that the proposition now before us does not meet with their approval, and they give their reasons :
That In the opinion of this board the new line proposed to he built by the Grand Trunk does not meet any of these requirements, for the following reasons :-
1. Because the distance by Grand Trunk from Portland to Port Simpson via North Bay will
be about 3,600 miles, and from LSvis to Port Simpson about 3,400 miles. Whereas the distance from Quebec to Vancouver by the Canadian Pacific is only 3,078 miles, and a direct line from the city of Quebec, through northern Quebec and northern Ontario by the route granted by parliament last year by charter to the Trans-Canada Railway would be only about 2,830 miles, and the distance from Montreal to the same point, by the branch line provided for in the Trans-Canada charter, less than 2,000 miles.
And they go a long way to show that you have adopted one of the longest routes. They further say :
3.	That the direction of the proposed Grand Trunk line running south-easterly from the north end of Lake Winnipeg towards Toronto, to such an extent that its easterly end will be ten degrees or 600 miles further south than the prairie district which it is sought to develop, invites the very danger of diverson of trade to the United States, which parliament has always sought to avoid in such charters.
Here is your whole scheme condemned by these business men. I will now show you what the town of Ti'uro says, the Athens of Nova Scotia, where we have the schools from which we control the whole of the public opinion of the provinces. A resolution was passed at the meeting at Truro. It referred first to the resolution of my hon. friend, which was passed in 1890-the 14tli of February. In February, thirteen years afterwards with our educational institutions at work during that time, we are all more intelligent and we are able to give the Finance Minister new light on the trade routes of the country. The resolution went on :
That this joint meeting of the board of trade and the citizens of Truro

All the leading men of the town gathered there to discuss this question. I heard there that day some of the ablest speeches I ever heard in my life. I am reporting here the decision that was reached with regard to this business proposition at this meeting of business men representing maritime provinces interests :
That this joint meeting of the board of trade and citizens of Truro, having considered the question of another transcontinental railway on Canadian soil, is of opinion that one is immediately necessary, on account of the immense and rapidly increasing production of the Northwest. which existing railways arc entirely inadequate to transport. That we are of the opinion that the next railway to be built for the purpose should be located considerably north of the existing lines, so as not only to develop a new area of fertile lands, but also to insure the export business to Canadian ports only and thus prevent a recurrence of the disappointment which has been experienced by maritime provinces ports in the past.
That such a line would also commend itself on account of the military defence of Canada ;
That the Trans-Canada Railway having adopted the route recommended by Sir Sandford Fleming, would seem to meet all requirements.

'I do not want to entertain that for one moment.
That agreement about the working of the eastern section will be kept just as long as it is convenient for the Grand Trunk Pacific to keep it in order to capture the trade of the west. But after they secure that trade they will repudiate the agreement and there is no power on earth to compel them to keep it if they do not want to. There was only one way to make a transcontinental railway a success ; that was to charter a new company and compel them to build a line so that they will own the line and put their money in it. Then we could compel them to operate it like the Canadian Pacific Railway. Whenever a road is divided into two parts as in this case in which the government is allowing the Grand Trunk to have the prairie section while the government carries the eastern section, that very moment you destroy the system and destroy the business of the maritime provinces. I will tell you that we have learned in Nova Scotia that no man can serve two masters, and the Grand Trunk cannot serve Portland and Halifax. The business men of Halifax are very angry and they have asked me to oppose this scheme because the Grand Trunk cannot or will not promote the interests of that city.
The next objection which as a maritime province man I have to this scheme is its connection with the Intercolonial. We do not wish any new line to connect with the Intercolonial. That is a question which is now being discussed by all the boards of trade of the maritime provinces, and if this is done it is going to be a great disadvantage. Suppose the trade of the west is going to be hauled over this line, then this line to Moncton would be a Grand Trunk Pacific line and not an Intercolonial line, because the greater will absorb the smaller, and, Sir, the Intercolonial Railway, from this time on will be cut off, and that railway which was intended as a basis of confederation, one of the ribs of the constitution, one of the bases of the constitution-that railway will be destroyed from Moncton to Halifax. We do not wish the Intercolonial Railway destroyed. It is the only instrument we have to control rates and we want this lever, to remain. We do hot want the Intercolonial Railway to be interfered with, but if this new company want to go to Halifax let them go upon their own rails, and keep absolutely clear of the Intercolonial Railway. When, some years ago, the Canadian Pacific Railway tried to get possession of the Intercolonial Railway, although they promised to equip it as a first-class railway, the people of the maritime provinces rose up, they sent delegations to Ottawa and they forbade the government to place the Intercolonial Railway in any railway company's hands. We do not wish the Grand Trunk Pacific to


Seymour Eugene Gourley: obtain the Intercolonial Railway, and if it has to go to Halifax let it go to Halifax on r>S ..owl1 la^s>
and leave the Intercolonial Railway absolutely alone. Hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces will find out that the battle cry which has already started is ' hands off the Intercolonial Railway.' ' Leave the Intercolonial Railway alone.' I am also instructed to ask parliament for money to double track the Intercolonial Railway and to equip it in the best manner possible. We from the maritime provinces have been too modest. We have never had that railway properly equipped. We should have taken the standard from the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Railway systems in Ontario, and we should have equipped the Intercolonial Railway in the best fashion possible so as to make it the great trade route between the maritime provinces and the west. That road should be maintained in the highest state of efficiency. We have been content to allow the Intercolonial Railway to be dragged down, and then lion, gentlemen come to parliament and say that the Intercolonial Railway does not pay. The Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway would not have paid if either of these roads had been equipped with light rails and poor cars. Let us equip the intercolonial Railway and put the people's road in a position to secure the trade of the maritime provinces.
I am bound to take some objection to the exploitation made by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) in my county in respect to that question. I have no doubt that there is a great conspiracy in Nova Scotia in regard to the ocean to ocean ra.il-way. I have no doubt that when this railway was projected and that when the terminus was fixed at Moncton there was an agreement entered into between the Liberals of Nova Scotia to this effect. If they left this railway at Moncton every man in Nova Scotia representing a Liberal constituency could go into his county and say that the reason that the terminus of the railway has been left at Moncton is that the ocean port may afterwards be established in his county. For instance, the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) can go into his county and say that the road has been left at Moncton but that the ocean port will be established at Country Harbour. The hon. member for Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross) will go into his constituency and say : I had that road stopped at Moncton, because then, in a very short time, it will be extended from Moncton to Louisburg or North Sydney. He will claim that there is a secret understanding that the great ocean port is going to be at Louisburg or North Sydney. I am glad to see the hon. member for Cumberland here, because I am dealing with the splendid exploitation which he has made in my county. The hon. gentleman evidently has an understanding with some

1039S
gentleman in my county who is going to run in the next election in the Liberal interest, because he evidently believes that he is so secure in his own county that he can lend his influence to his friends in the neighbouring county. He is going to have that railway carried through my county. He says that they may double track the Intercolonial Railway and that they are going to take this railway through my county and make Five Islands or Truro the winter port. I suppose that when the election comes on my bon. friend will come over and say that the government have determined to make Five Islands a winter port. My county runs along the Bay of Fundy for 40 or 50 miles, and I do not know what port will be selected. That is a splendid suggestion for the hon. member for Cumberland to make and it is one so much in my interest perhaps that I am going to ask him to vote for a proposition that I will move that the road shall be extended from the terminus at Moncton to Truro via Five Islands in my county. They were running a local election in my county, and the hon. member for Cumberland came to help his friend there. He had the reputation of having a trunk full of kites and this telegram was sent to him :	' Come over
and bring your kites. We have need of them in this county.' He came over and he asked the people if they wanted the railway extended to Five Islands. This was only four or five days before the election, and he said that the only trouble was that the people had not given notice of their desires soon enough. He said :	If you had
given notice two or three weeks ago we would have had the railway fairly started by this time. Mr. Cowan of Springhill will come over here and build you a railway and Mr. Tucker will come over and build a railway. When I told the people that the hon. gentleman was a kite flyer, they said that with such an honest and sincere looking man it is impossible. Surely he meant what he said when he told us that they were going on to build that railway. The result was that several gentlemen whom he came over to support were elected because there was a great change in that section of the country owing to these promises. I will read what the hon. gentleman said the other day in this House, because I do not want to misrepresent so courageous a gentleman as the hon. member for Cumberland :
Mr. Hays has stated, and he should be in a position to speak, that there will he traffic enough to supply half a dozen harbours.
When he goes down to Nova Scotia he will be able to say that we discussed all those matters in parliament. There will be a line to Five Islands and one to Pictou countv. I have here an interview published in Pictou with Mr. E. M. MacDonald who is likely to be an opponent of my hon. friend
from Pictou (Mr. Bell). He had been here, and when he got back to Pictou he said, and he was going to have the line extended from Moncton to Pictou. He said he was going to have a line to Pictou and a gi^at ocean port there, and I suppose that I might equally claim the same for the county of Colchester. But I have an opportunity of being in parliament, and I can move an amendment.


Mr. LOGAN.: Does the hon. gentleman propose to parallel the Intercolonial Railway from Moncton to Truro ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Don't bother me about paralleling lines. I will parallel them every twelve miles; I think that is about the proper distance that railways should be apart in Canada. If you people over there furnish the money I will tell you where to build the railways. I want to show now that the government knew the weakness of their scheme, and it is only because they knew their system was broken in two that they put this routing clause in the contract. If the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway were not tied up with the old Grand Trunk Railway, there would be no necessity for any routing clause, because then the whole Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system and every man connected with it, would be anxious to send every pound of freight to their port in the maritime provinces. Look at the unscientific and illegal way in which that clause is drawn. Why it is a stump speech. That clause was never drawn up by a lawyer. There is not a cheap stump speaker in Nova Scotia who could not use better English than is used in that clause. In a great contract dealing with transcontinental interests, there is nothing but the cheapest buncombe. Listen to it :
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian charnels.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order, order.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: These gentlemen on the other side of the House should have some self-respect.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order, order.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I will say the last word I have to say if I stay here for two days, and the sooner these gentlemen over there understand it the better. If I had any of them out of doors I would throw them over this building. I observe good manners myself, and the first man who does not observe good manners it will be the worse for

him. I can enforce order in this House if the Speaker cannot. I can go over there and fix the whole lot of them. If there is no order I will settle the question of order myself, and I won't have to appeal to the Chair either. I was showing, Sir, the absurd language in which this contract was drawn. On the face of it, it showed that it was intended to humbug the people of the maritime provinces. I cannot believe that the Minister of Justice would use such language in an Act of parliament. He was drawing up a great contract which might involve the expenditure of $200,000,000, and I cannot imagine him using such buncombe as that with regard to the routing of the freight. I hope it was not the Minister of Justice who drew that clause. If he did then he is mistaken if he thinks that the people of the maritime provinces will be fooled by such cheap trash. The language used in that section is mere cheap clap-trap on the political stage, and it should never appear in a statute. I have read you the buncombe on one side, and here as the buncombe on the other side :
The company accepts the aid on these conditions and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its branches, Dot specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada he carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the; through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is nothing more than a stump speech incorporated in a solemn Act of parliament. It will never fool the people of the maritime provinces. One business man told me that the government had better strike it out, because anyway it simply means that the freight will go to Portland, and it would be more sensible to strike it out, because it would be more honest. For thirty years we have been trying in the maritime provinces to secure a transcontinental railway to carry the traffic of the west to our maritime ports, and do you think that we will be gold-bricked by such nonsense in an Act of parliament, that no respeetaWe boy in the maritime provinces would use from the public platform in the most excitable moments of political debate. And here is worse buncombe if possible than what I have read. Tlie 43rd clause of the agreement says :
The company further agrees that it shall not in any matter within Its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted namely,-the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That is the prayer of the sinner standing ' in extremis.' When the government inserted that clause they put it in as a pious wisii that the people of Canada would not look at their infamous transaction and criticise it. The merchants in Nova Scotia know exactly the meaning of that clause, and not a man of them will be deceived by it. The Prime Minister told us that the mixing up of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway with the old Graud Trunk was a strong point in his scheme, but I say it is an ineffable weakness in the scheme both from a financial and national point of view. I say the Grand Trunk Railway Company is a bankrupt concern; it does not pay interest on its securities. It has been a defaulter for thirty or forty years; and when a man cannot pay a hundred cents on the dollar, he should not get credit on any financial scheme. The whole thing is an exploitation to get the votes of the Grand Trunk and nothing more.
What a striking commentary that routing-clause is upon an ocean-to-ocean line. If this had been really an ocean-to-oeean line, that foolish clause would not have been necessary. I think my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), in the course of his speech, suggested that every official of the Grand Trunk would use his influence to have the freight routed in the interests of this company. I think that is drawing it 'very mild. I think no official of the company in the North-west will have to mention anything of that kind to any man there. I lived in the North-west and had to do business with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I had to study the interests of that company and inquire how my interests would be served by serving them. Every man and every child in the North-west, doing business with the Grand Trunk Railway, will know the effect of this routing clause-will know that the Grand Trunk would charge the same rate to Halifax as to Portland; and therefore every man will know that it is in the interest of the Grand Trunk to have the freight routed to Portland, and will act accordingly. I received to-day a telegram from the Board of Trade of Halifax which I will take the liberty of reading :
Halifax, N.S., Aug. 31.
S. E. Gourley, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Halifax Board of Trade reaffirming resolutions of May 23rd and July 22nd, urges that government embodies in contract that Grand Trunk Pacific line between Moncton and Quebec must be built concurrent with western divtai >us, and further urges that clause relating to routing of shipments be so amended that all shipments originating in Canada for export must be carried through Canadian termini summer and winter.



J. E. DEWOLF,

[Stage Direction]
President.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.

Every man in the Halifax Board of Trade is fully aware that this routing clause is a fatal error; and they ask that it be made 'absolute and imperative, or it is not the slightest good to the maritime provinces. I have undertaken to put an amendment 'on the Order paper to that effect, which I intend to press and which I hope will meet with the approval of the government.
Now, I want to say one word to the lion, 'member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser). I am sorry he is not here. He has got paid for the part he has taken in this scheme, because I see the following interview in the Halifax Morning ' Chronicle ' of August 27 :
It. does not look now as though we would build a road from the west to Nova Scotia. The government has decided on the Grand Trunk Pacific and there is not room for two.' Such was the assertion made to a reporter for the * Chronicle ' last evening my Mr. D. D. Mann, of the firm of Mackenzie & Mann, who is at present in the city in connection with matters pertaining to the Hailfax and South-western Railway.
Mr. Mann intimated strongly that his firm had abandoned the idea of making Country Harbour their eastern terminus and that they would not, at least for a number of years, have a transcontinental railway.
So that the hon. member for Guysborough by dickering with this scheme, has lost the chance of Mackenzie & Mann making Country Harbour their maritime port, and he will gain no advantage from this scheme. I offer my sincere sympathy to the hon. member for Guysborough.
Now, the American people have noticed the defect in our whole railway system. They have noticed the weakness of it passing through that narrow section of country (15 miles wide between Lake Winnipeg and tlie Manitoba border. The result is that they are talking of our country being defenceless in a military sense. It is defenceless so long as that defect remains. 1 see in ' Harper's Weekly,' a paper not given to undue excitement, the following state-'ment in the issue of June 13 :
There is still another point of view from which it might be well for Englishmen to consider Mr. Chamberlain's proposal. If, in order to conciliate Canada and Australia, they erect a wall against the food products of the United States, they cannot reasonably expect to keep American good-will. Yet, to forfeit American good-will would virtually be to commit national suicide. It is obvious that, were we unfriendly to England, she could not in war time procure an ounce of food products from the North-west provinces of the Dominion, because we should cut the railways connecting that region with the seaboard.
The consolidation of the British empire by means of a protective tariff is a chimera. The non-agricultural majority of the British population will never alienate the foreign consumers of their manufactures in order to nropitiate colonial agriculturists. They mow know, or they soon will recognize, that such a programme would mean ruin. England's sole hope of salvation is in -winning and keeping the good-will of the United States.
The Americans understand exactly the weakness of our position, and while the condition remains we are helpless in case of any difficulty arising
I want to say one word with reference to railways in Nova Scotia. If I were speaking in a sectional sense, I should oppose this measure because in an expenditure of $200,000,000 there is not one mile of railway added to the railways of Nova Scotia. Look at the record of the railways in the various provinces of Canada in 1902 : Ontario has 7,139 miles; Quebec, 3,445 miles; New Brunswick, 1,444 miles ; Nova Scotia, 1,051 miles ; Prince Edward Island, 209 miles; Manitoba, 2,128 miles; North-west and Yukon Territories, 2,080 miles; British Columbia, 1,372 miles. We have the smallest mileage by far in the whole Dominion of Canada, barring Prince Edward Island. Nova Scotia, the oldest province of this Dominion, has been most shamefully treated by this government; and I for one protest in the name of the people of Nova Scotia at this state of affairs. We want railways in Colchester county. We want a railway from Truro to Five Islands and Parrsboro', a distance of 65 miles; we want a railway from Brookfield to East-ville, 40 miles; and we want a railway from Truro to North Shore, 35 miles; to give our county some opportunity to mingle in the trade routes of the world. We cannot get a mile of'these railways; and yet $200,000,000 are to be flung into the sea in order to exploit this system which will not be in the nature of an ocean-going road. I say the first duty of this government should be to select some port on the Atlantic coast. They selected Port Simpson on the Pacific, and that is all right.
If you want to build a transcontinental line, surely you should have an Atlantic port. You should select some port and devote your whole attention to exploiting it. What is the trouble with Montreal to-day. The trouble is that it takes four or five days to unload and four or five more to load a ship, whereas in New York, you can both load and unload in three or four days. If you want to build up the maritime provinces you will have to take one harbour. The government should be strong enough to select Halifax or St. John and exploit that port. Expend $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 to put that port in a position to compete with New York. Unless you do that, you cannot dominate the trade. Montreal and Quebec will not he in it unless you equip their ports in the same way as New York and Boston are.
Alexander Johnston: I would like to get from the hon. gentleman an expression of his opinion with respect to the subsidizing of railways in Nova Scotia. Does he agree with the declaration made by some of his lenders that the subsidizing in the other provinces should cease ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: My views are too well known. We have differed before on these



matters. I do not know what views which my party leaders hold as the hon. gentleman does not know what his hold. Personally, I am a strong advocate of subsidizing railways. I shall not detain the House any longer but wish to thank lion, members for the courteous attention they have given my remarks.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Desjardins,
Douglas,
Dugas,
Emmerson,
Erb,
Ethier,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Fortier,
Fraser,
Gallery,
Galliher,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gibson,
Girard,
Gould,
Grant,
Guthrie,
Harty,
Harwood,
Holmes,
Hyman,
Johnston (Cape Breton), Johnston (Lambton), Kendall,
Lang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption) Lavergne,
Law.
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Mulock (Sir William), Murray.
Oliver,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Power,
Prefontaine,
Proulx.
Puttee.
Reid (Restigouche), Riley,
Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Rimouski),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.) Rousseau,
Russell.
Schell,
Stephens,
Stewart,
Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot.
Tarte.
Thompson (Haldimand and Monck),
Tobin.
Tolmia.
Tucker,
Turcot.
Turgeon,
Wade,
Wallace,
Wright.-119.
Amendment to the amendment negatived. House divided on amendment (Mr. Puttee).
YEAS : Messieurs
Avery,
Barker,
Bell,
Bennett,
Birkett,
Blain,
Boyd,
Brock.
Bruce,
Calvin,
Cargill,
Carscallen, , Casgrain,
Clancy,
Clare,
Clarke,
Culbert,
Earle.
Fowler,
Gilmour,
Hackett,
Halliday,
Hughes (Victoria),
Ingram, *
Johnston (Cardwell)
Kaulbach,
Kemp,
Kendrey,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
LaRiviere,
La veil,
Lefurgey,
Leonard,
MacLaren (Perth), McGowan,
Monk,
Northrup,
Porter,
Puttee.
Reid (Grenville), Robinson (Elgin) Roche (Marquette), Sherritt,
Sproule,
Taylor,
Thomson (G'ey), Tolton.
Vrooman,
Wilson.-50.
Alcorn,
Angers,
Arehambault,
Ball,
Bazinet,
Beith.
Beland,
Belcourt,
Bernier,
NAYS :
Messieurs
Lewis,
Logan,
Lovell,
Loy,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacKinnon,
MacLaren (Huntingdon) Macpherson,

Bickerdike,	MeColl,
Blair,	McCool,
Borden (Sir Frederick) McCreary Bourassa,	"
Bourbonnais,
Broder,
Brown,
Bruneau,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Carbonneau,
Carroll,
Champagne,
Christie,
Cochrane,
Copp,
Costigan,
Delisle,
Demers (Ldvis), Demers (St. John) Desjardins,
Douglas,
Dugas,
Emmerson,
Erb,
Ethier,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Fortier,
Fraser,
Gallery,
Galliher,
Ganong,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gibson,
Girard,
Gould,
Grant,
Guthrie,
Haggart.
Harty,
Harwood,
Henderson,
Heyd,
Holmes,
Hyman,
McEwen,
McGugan,
McIntosh,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
Madore,
Malouin,
Murcil (Bagot)
Marcil (Bonaventure), Matheson,
Mayrand,
Meigs,
Mignault,
Monet,
Morin,
Morrison,
Mulock (Sir William), Murray,
Oliver,
Osier,
Farmelee,
Paterson,
Pope,
Power,
Prdfontaine,
Proulx,
Reid (Restigouche), Rilex.
Robinson (Northumberland),
Roche (Halifax), Rosamond,
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Rimouski),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.) Rousseau.
Russell,
Schell,
Stephens,
Stewart,
Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot,
Tarte,
Thompson (Haldimand and Monck),
Johnston (Cape Breton), Tobjn Johnston (Lambton), Tolmie Kendall,	Tucker,'
Lang,	Turcot
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Turgeo'n,
Laurier (L'Assomptionbwade, '
Lavergne,	Wallace,
Daw,	Ward.
LeBlanc,	Wilmot,
Lemieux, '	Wright.-135.
Lennox,
Amendment (Mr. Puttee) negatived.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: On consulting the list, I find the name of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) among those who spoke on the main motion, which we are not now considering. That being the case, the hon. gentleman is not in order in speaking again.


Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move inamendment:
That all the words after the words * National Transcontinental Railway ' in the main motion be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor 3264
To suspend the confirmation of the said agreement until such time as this House shall be iu possession of the report of the transportation commission just constituted, and until the members of this House shall have had an opportunity of consulting their constituents upon the terms and conditions of the said agreement.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Casgrain).		YEAS : Messieurs
Alcorn,		Kendrey,
Avery,		Kidd,
Ball,		Lancaster,
Barker,		LaRiviere, ,
Bell,		Lavell,
Bennett,		Lefurgey,
Birkett,		Lennox.
Blain,		Leonard,
Blair,		MacLaren (Perth),
Boyd,		McGowan,
Brock,		McIntosh,
Broder,		Monk.
Bruce,		Morin,
Calvin,		Northrup,
Cargill,		Osier.
Carscallen,		Pope,
Casgrain,		Porter,
Clancy,		Puttee.
Clare,		Reid (Grenville),
Clarke,		Richardson,
Cochrane,		Robinson (Elgin),
Culbert,		Robinson (Northum-
Earle,		berland),
Fowler,		Roche (Marquette),
Ganong,		Rosamond,
Gilmour,		Sherrltt,
Gourley,		Simmons,
Hackett,		[DOT] Sproule,
Haggart,		Taylor,
Halliday,		Thomson (Grey),
Henderson,		Tolton.
Hughes (Victoria)		Vrooman,
Ingram,		Ward.
Johnston (Cardwell) Wilmoth		
Kaulbach, Kemp,		Wilson.-70.
		NAYS : Messieurs
Angers,		Lewis.
Archambault,		Logan.
Bazinet,		Lovell,
Beith,		Loy,
Behind,		Macdonald.
Belcourt,		Mackle.
Bernier,		MacKinnon.
Bickerdike,		MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Borden (Sir	Frederick) Macpherson,	
Bourassa,		MeColl,
Bourbonnais,		McCool.
Brown,		McCreary,
Bruneau,		McEwen.
Bureau,		McGugan,
Calvert,		Mclsaac,
Carbonneau,		McLennan,
Carroll,		Madore,
Champagne,		Malouin,
Christie,		Marcil (Bagot),
Copp,		Marcil (Bonaventure),
Costigan,		Matheson,
Davis,		Mayrand,
Delisle,		Meigs,
Demers (Ldvis),		Mignault,
Demers (St.	John) Monet*	
Desjardins,		Morrison.
Douglas,		Mulock (Sir William),

Dugas,
Emmerson,
Erb,
Ethier,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Fortier,
Fraser,
Gallery,
Galllher,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gibson,
Girard,
Gould,
Grant,
Guthrie,
Harty,
Harwood,
Holmes,
Hyman,
Johnston (Cape Breton) Johnston (Lambton), Kendall,
Lang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption), Lavergne,
Law,
LeRlanc,
Lemieux.
Amendment
Murray,
Oliver,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Power,
Prdfontaine,
Proulx,
Reid (Restigouche), Riley.
Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Riruouski),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.) Rousseau,
Russell,
Schell,
Stephens,
Stewart',
Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot.
Tarte,
Thompson (Halditnand and Monck),
Tobin,
Tolmie,
Tucker,
Turcot,
Turgeon,
Wade,
Wallace,
Wright.-117.
(Mr. Casgrain) negatived.
House divided on main motion (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier).	YEAS : Messieurs
Angers,	Lemieux,
Archambault,	Lewis.
Bazinet,	Logan.
Beith,	Lovell.
Bdiand,	Loy.
Belcourt,	Macdonald.
Bernier,	Mackie.
Bickerdike,	MacKinnon.
Borden (Sir FrederlckjMaclaren (Huntingdon),	
Bourassa,	Macpherson,
Bourbonnals,	McColl,
Brown,	McCool,
Bruneau,	McCreary,
Bureau,	McEwen,
Calvert,	McGugan,
Carbonneau,	Mclsaae.
Carroll,	McLennan.
Champagne,	Madore,
Christie,	Malouin.
Copp,	Marcil (Bagot),
Costigan,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Davis,	Matheson,
Delisle,	Mayrand,
Demers (Ldvis),	Meigs,
Demers (St. John),	Mignault,
Desjardins,	Monet,
Douglas,	Morrison,
Dugas,	Mulock (Sir William),
Emmerson,	Murray,
Erb,	Oliver.
Ethier,	Parmelee.
Fisher,	Paterson,
Fitzpatrick,	Power.
Fortier,	Prdfontaine.
Fraser,	Proulx.
Gallery,	Reid (Restigouche),
Galliher,	Riley,
Gauvreau,	Roche (Halifax),
Geoffrion,	Ross (Ontario),


Mr. CASGRAIN.: German,	Ross (Rimouski),
Gibson,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.)
Girard,	Rousseau,
Gould,	Russell,
Grant,	Schell.
Guthrie,	Stephens,
Harty,	Stewart,
Harwood,	Sutherland (Essex),
Heyd,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Holmes,	Talbot,
Hyman, *	Thompson (Haldimand
Johnston (Cape Breton),	and Monck),
Johnston (Lambton),	Tobin.
Kendall,	Tolmie,
Lang,	Tucker.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Turcot,
Laurier (L'Assomption)	, Turgeon,
Lavergne,	Wade,
Law,	Wallace,
LeBlanc,	Wright.-117.
NAYS: [DOT]	
Messieurs	
Alcorn,	Kendrey,
Avery,	Kidd,
Bali,	Lancaster,
Barker,	LaRiviere,
Bell,	Lavell,
Bennett,	Lefurgey,
Birkett,	Lennox.
Blain,	Ldonard,
Blair,	MacLaren (Perth),
Boyd,	McGowan,
Brock,	McIntosh,
Broder,	Monk,
Bruce,	Morin,
Calvin,	Northrup,
Cargill,	Osier.
Carscallen,	Pope,
Casgrain,	Porter,
Clancy,	Puttee.
Clare,	Reid (Grenville),
Clarke,	Richardson.
Cochrane,	Robinson (Elgin),
Culbert,	Robinson (Northum-
Earle,	berland),
Fowler,	Roche (Marquette),
Ganong,	Rosamond,
Gilmour,	Sherritt.
Gourley,	Simmons,
Hackett,	Sproule,
Haggart.	Tarte,
Halliday,	Taylor,
Henderson,	Thomson (Grey),
Hughes (Victoria),	Tolton,
Ingram,	Vrooman,
Johnston (Cardwell)	Ward,
Kaulbach,	Wilmot,
Kemp,	Wilson.-71.
PAIRS.	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Cartwright,	Tupper,
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Fielding,	Borden (Halifax),
Smith (Vancouver),	Hale,
McCarthy,	Roddick,
Dyment,	McCormick,
Scott,	Smith (Wentworth),
Cowan,	Pringle,
Campbell,	Maclean,
Hughes (P.E.I.),	Seagram,


Mr. CALVERT.: Mr. Speaker, I beg to draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member Sor Algoma (Mr. Dyment) have not voted.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Mr. Speaker had left the Chair.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. Mr. Fielding).: I am paired with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). Otherwise I should have voted against the amendments, and for the main motion.


Mr. DYMENT.: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McCormick), Had I voted, I would have voted for the resolution.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it too late to ask that the vote be read ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It is not too late for anything, since the Speaker has gone back into the Chair.


William Samuel Calvert: I was on my feet as soon as the vote was over, but the cheering and noise prevented you from hearing me, Mr. Speaker.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the vote be read. I presume I am in order.
Vote read.


George Taylor: I understood the Clerk, in reading, to give the name of Mr. Dyment.
Some lion. MEMBERS. No.
Motion (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I beg leave to move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.
The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What will be the business taken up to-day ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The same business.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask my hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if we are to take up the Bill or continue on the resolution ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will dispose of the resolution, and then take up -the Bill if convenient to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 3.05 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 2, 1903.