1903-08-27

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Have new regulations been issued for the guidance of the officers and men on board the Dominion government steamer 'Quadra'?
2.	If so, when were they issued ?
3.	Do they provide, among other stipulations, that the amount allowed for feeding the officers of the vessel is reduced from 50-55 cents per diem to 33 cents a day, or 11 cents a meal ?
4.	Is the following the bill of fare for the officers' mess on the 'Quadra'?

[Stage Direction]
(Sunday).
Breakfast-Ham and eggs, baked beans.
Dinner-Soup, roast and boiled meat, boiled ham, roast or boiled poultry, potatoes and vegetables, plum pudding and jelly.
Supper-Cold meats, fried potatoes, preserves. (Monday)
Breakfast-Porridge, mutton chops, cold ham.
Dinner-Soup, Irish stew, roast beef, potatoes and vegetables, pastry.
Supper-Curry and rice, cold meats, chipped potatoes.	[DOT]
(Tuesday).
Breakfast-Porridge, beefsteak, bacon.	'
Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: Dinner-Soup, roast mutton, corned beef, potatoes and vegetables, Queen pudding.
Supper-Cold meats, fried potatoes, baked beans.
(Wednesday).
Breakfast-Porridge, salt cod and pork scraps, liver and bacon.
Dinner-Pea soup, corned beef, beefsteak pie, potatoes and vegetables, pastry.
Supper-Fish patties, cold meats, fried potatoes, Washington pies.
(Thursday).
Breakfast-Ham and eggs, baked beans. Dinner-Soup, roast or boiled poultry, boiled or roast meat, potatoes and vegetables, apple and plum pudding, fruit.
Supper-Haricot meat, cold meat, fried potatoes, tea biscuits and preserves.
(Friday).
Breakfast-Porridge, salt herring, lamb chops. Dinner-Pea soup, fresh fish, beefsteak and kidney pudding, potatoes and vegetables, blueberry tarts.
Supper-Fish patties, cold meats, doughnuts, marmalade.
(Saturday).
Breakfast-Porridge, beefsteak, boiled eggs. Dinner-Soup, cbrned beef, roast lamb, potatoes and vegetables, bread and butter pudding.
Supper-Irish stew, cold meats, chipped potatoes.
5.	Have the officers to provide out of their
pay the difference between the cost of this bill of fare and the allowance made by the government ?
6.	Has the government taken steps to ascertain whether the meals can be furnished at 11 cents.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine) :: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The existing bills of fare have been in force for many years, and no reduction has been made. The agents are empowered to alter them if articles mentioned cannot be obtained at reasonable prices.
4.	Yes.	*
5.	No.
6.	Not necessary. Agents report at the end of each season cost of vitualling the crews of the different government ships, which is entirely controlled by the market, and the inspecting officer reports that no complaints have ever been made by any of the officers or crew.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway, and the motion of Mr. Puttee in amendment thereto.
Mr. F. B. WADE (Annapolis).: Mr. Speaker, there has been so much said on

this question by different hon. members on both sides of this House that it is difficult for one to present any new facts or matters that will be of interest to the House. At the same time I do not feel that I can allow some statements that have been made to pass unchallenged, and I do not care, upon a project of such vast importance to Canada as this is, to give a silent vote. I believe that every man who has taken part in this discussion, that every man who has thereby aided in pressing this scheme forward, that every man,' who records his vote in its favour, will in the future have cause for congratulating himself that the privilege was afforded him here and that he improved the opportunity. In the first place up to a few weeks ago every person almost through the length and breadth of Canada, not admittel, but contended, that this project was absolutely necessary, and that it was an incumbent duty upon the government to proceed at once with the work. I would like to know what would be said of the government to-day by the opposition press if parliament had prorogued without the government bringing down a scheme for another transcontinental road. The whole country, the whole opposition press woull have been up in arms soundly denouncing it, and I believe properly so, because the government would have been recreant to its [DOT]duty if it had not brought down this measure. The project then was necessary, the people demanded it, the country required it, and the only objection that is now taken is that the government has not delayed long enough, that it has not taken sufficient time to obtain the necessary information. Well, I mean to say, Sir, the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House would be very loth indeed to support this scheme were they not convinced that all the information necessary was at hand, t for one would be loth to do so. Do hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House suppose that we have been sitting quietly by all these weeks and months and years, and that we have not possessed ourselves of sufficient information? I mean to state here that my judgment has been convinced that this road Is necessary, and that the government has all the information in its possession for the purpose of entering into the contract that has been made. Now, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) asked if ever a company had made a contract to build a railroad with such slight information, or if ever a contract for the construction of a railroad had been entered into before instrumental surveys by engineers had been made. I need not go very far afield in answering that question. Let me refer him to a railway at his own doors-the Halifax and South-western Railway. In 1891 the Premier of Nova Scotia entered into a contract with the South-western Railway Company to build a railway from Halifax to
Barrington, connecting with the road to Yarmouth, There had been no survey. There was no such information as we have in regard to this. For years and years the people had been clamouring for the road, and for years and years it had been persistently stated that the road could not be constructed along the south shore of Nova Scotia. When the contract was entered into by the Murray government, what did we find the opposition press and the party, of which my hon. friend is the leader, doing? We found them unanimously denouncing the scheme, we found them stating exactly what the hon. gentleman is stating here, mat the government had not sufficient information, we found them stating that the road could not be built, and we found them stating that the engineering difficulties were insuperable. They denounced the scheme as being wild, reckless and fantastic, and all these phrases that we have listened to coming from hon. members on the other side of the House might have been culled from the opposition press of Nova Scotia at that time. The scheme was presented to the people, these statements were made in regard to it, and what did we find as the answer which the people made ? In the province of Nova Scotia there were returned only two gentlemen as the opposition in the legislature, and I understand that in that province the leader of the opposition, who 'has one man behind him to second his resolutions, is to organize that province in a campaign against that project; and I believe further, if I am informed correctly, that he purposes coming in opposition to the hon. member who spoke to the House last night. That was the position that the opposition took in regard to that railway. What are the facts ? The facts are that the construction is proceeding along the whole line of the road to-day, the facts are that a splendid line has been secured, the facts are that within another year probably the road will be in operation from one end to the other, and that in face of the united opposition of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia, and this road will he built and carried through in spite of their opposition. It is a surprising thing to me when I look back over the history of railroad building in Nova Scotia that we find from the earliest times-and the earliest times were in 1854, when Joe Howe introduced his first railway legislation into the provincial legislature-the Conservative party unitedly denouncing him and denouncing his scheme, and saying that it would bring ruin and destruction to the province of Nova Scotia. Almost continuously from that time forward we have had to meet the opposition of these gentlemen. Let me say in passing, that after this road is built and is successful, I would not be surprised to find these gentlemen on the Conservative benches coming forward and claiming credit for the whole business ; just as they did

after the Dominion coal legislation, which was introduced by my hon. friend the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in the province of Nova Scotia, the result of which was virtually to save that province from serious financial disaster, and after the Conservative party had denounced it in the press and denounced it on every platform throughout the length and breadth of the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. FRASER.: And in this House.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Yes, and in this House, and after it became an accomplished fact and a huge success and that province was rescued from its financial difficulties; we had then the hon. Sir Charles Tupper running in Cape Breton county and claiming credit for it all-'me, and Betty, killed the bear,' as the old saying goes.
I think it will be incumbent on me to make a few remarks here with regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) last night. Whom the gods wish to destroy they first made mad; and when a man has no argument and feels the weakness of his position, his temper is very near the surface and he is liable to make statements which in his calmer moments he would regret. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) last night saw fit to premise his argument by the statement that the loyalty of the gentlemen upon this side of the House was not all wool or a yard wide, to use his own elegant expression. He made statements reflecting upon the loyalty of the people of his own province of Nova Scotia. He did not stop there, but he made use of these words ;
They were rebels to all intents and purposes.
I wish to tell the hon gentleman now, that those were unwise words. He has stigmatized the majority of the people of Nova Scotia as no better than rebels. He has spoken of the people of Pictou county, the Liberals of Pictou county, as no better than rebels, and yet, Sir, I am informed that every Liberal in the county of Pictou" has at one time or other voted for the hon..gentleman (Mr. Bell). Who was it that first brought forward charges like this in this House and in this country V The hon. Sir Charles Tupper was the first I believe to start the cry. A more unfounded; a more cowardly statement was never made in any place. While he was High Commissioner in England, lie induced the people there to believe that the great Liberal party of the Dominion of Canada were absolutely disloyal to the Crown, and at the time this government assumed power in 1896; at the time when the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier made his celebrated speech in Montreal, the English papers next morning announced surprise to find that he was loyal to the empire. Why did they express that surprise V It was because our paid agent in London had been over there slandering us.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Now Sir, I ask, who is the meanest kind of a traitor ; who is the most contemptible kind of a traitor, if it be not the man who charges his fellowmen; who charges the majority of the electors of the Dominion of Canada with being traitors and disloyal. The statements made by Sir Charles Tupper have followed him into oblivion. The position he took in that connection, I believe, has done more to destroy him politically than anything else. And, I wish to say to the hon. gentleman who represents Pictou (Mr. Bell) that I believe that in uttering the words to which I have referred, he was sounding his own political death knell. 1 will say no more upon that subject. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) smiles, but he does not feel happy.
I wish now to address myself to a few of the remarks which were made by my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) with regard to this scheme, it was mighty difficult to find out just where he stood in the matter. He was certain as to all expenditures west-all these gentlemen yonder are satisfied about that; there is no difficulty in their minds about spending millions and tens of millions of dollars all along through the west, through British Columbia, through the wilds of Lake Superior, and even down to North Bay. But then their consciences begin to prick them. They will, some of them, permit expenditure ns far as Montreal, and a few of them will go to Quebec, but not a living soul of them will permit one dollar to be expended beyond Quebec. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) spoke very strongly in favour of the project of the leader of the opposition, until it came down to Quebec. Then he commenced to hedge, but he gave us from his brief facts and arguments which if correct would make it appear that it is absolutely Impossible to construct a road from Quebec to Moncton. That is his argument; that was his array of facts.


Mr. BELL.: He did not say so.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Well, if he did not say so, then my ears misunderstood him entirely.


John William Bell: He said the very opposite.


Fletcher Bath Wade: He pointed out the difficulties of grades, and said that no such road could be built to Moncton because of these grades and these curves, and because of other reasons that I will refer to later. He then quoted or rather misquoted from the report of Sir Sandford Fleming, a report which does not touch this road at all, which was a report upon the building of a road from River du Loup to Truro; and we are not going to River du Loup, and we have been saying that you cannot go to River du Loup. But, Sir, when the hon. gentleman was asked a plain question; when it was put to him fairly and squarely; do you approve of building from Quebec to Moncton; did he answer ? Did this valiant loyal

gentleman make Ms answer to that question in the interest of the maritime provinces 7


John William Bell: Yes he did.


Fletcher Bath Wade: What was his answer.


John William Bell: His answer was


Fletcher Bath Wade: I will tell him his answer; he need not interrupt me.


John William Bell: I must be allowed to state my answer. I answered that I supported the proposition of the leader of the opposition, and that is a straight enough answer.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The answer that the hon. gentleman gave was this :	I will support
the proposition of my hon. friend and leader.


John William Bell: Exactly.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) need not have become restless about this thing. I was not going to quote him incorrectly. X am not intentionally stirring him up.


John William Bell: I want to keep you right.


Fletcher Bath Wade: He said : I adopt the policy of my leader.


John William Bell: Exactly.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Now, what is the policy of his hon. leader with regard to Moncton V As far as I can gather it was that some time in the dim and distant future, when the walking is good around River du Loup, he will go there and see whether there can be a good line obtained, but he has first convinced himself that a good line cannot be obtained, and the whole burden of his argument was to aid and strengthen the contention that a good line cannot be obtained. Therefore, the leader of the opposition does not propose to carry out any such proposition as that, but, as a representative of the lower provinces he dare not take a position flatly and honestly against the construction of the road from Quebec to Moncton. Now, there was a statement made by the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) that this road should have been built long ago from Quebec to Moncton. We have a similar statement from Sir Charles Tupper away back in 1884. We have statements from scores of public men to the same effect, and there is no doubt that the Minister of the Interior was perfectly correct when he said, if the government had to deal with western members instead of members from the maritime provinces, that road would have been built long ago.
I believe that is correct. The hon. leader of the opposition took him to task on this point, and undertook to show that he had cast some reflection on the members from the maritime provinces. Nothing was farther from his mind. What he meant, and what we understood him to mean, and what the country will understand him to 308
mean, is this :	That if there is a matter
of importance or of interest to the west, say to the province of Manitoba-something that is going to build up that part of the Dominion-we would find all the Manitoba members standing together as a unit, and claiming and demanding it. But, Sir, when we are endeavouring to obtain this matter of vital importance to the maritime provinces, do we find all the members from the maritime provinces standing together ? No, Sir ; we have the sad spectacle of the hon. leader of the opposition, who represents the city of Halifax, and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), doing their utmost to discredit that portion of the scheme, and to prevent this road being built to the maritime provinces, though it will be the salvation of the situation so far as those provinces are concerned. That is what the hon. Minister of the Interior meant, and these are the cold, clean facts as demonstrated before this House during the progress of this debate. I wonder why it is that there is such a deadly antipathy on the part of some members on the other side of the House towards the maritime provinces.


Mr. OLANCY.: Hear, hear.


Fletcher Bath Wade: ' Hear, hear,' says that delightful member from Bothwell. He knows what the reason is-will he be kind enough to tell us some day ? That that feeling does exist we know. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that the maritime provinces have a population of about a million. That they are among the older provinces of the Dominion of Canada ; that they have interests to be conserved and looked after ; and I want him and those of his ilk who have this feeling against the maritime provinces, to understand that we of the maritime provinces are determined to protect our rights and to look out for our interests, and that when there is any great scheme before the public for the up-building of Canada, we wish to be in that scheme. We want to be benefited and developed and increased to the same extent as the other parts of the Dominion, if wre can.
Now, I did not take any sectional view of this scheme when it came before the Railway Committee and was discussed there. The position the maritime members took was this, that if a railway was to be built from the Pacific ocean to Quebec, that road railway should be extended through the lower provinces to a maritime province port. We did not ask that any burden should be placed on the western farmer ; we did not ask that he should be compelled to pay one dollar more freight on his grain. But we did say this :	If wei do not Interfere with
the routing of your grain, if we do not add an additional fraction of a cent on the wheat you sent to market, but if at the same time we can cause the shipping of that grain or a portion of it through maritime province ports, we do not think



9S28
you should object. That was the proposition.
Let me refer for a few moments to the history of this movement-and I will be as brief as I possibly can. For years there has been talk of another transcontinental railway. Last year that was crystallized to a certain extent. The hon. leader of the opposition, speaking from his place in parliament, declared that he would support any reasonable scheme for the purpose of providing an outlet for the grain grown in the Canadian North-west. These were his words :
When the hon. gentleman brings down any reasonable scheme for increasing the means of Canadian transportation, any scheme by means of which the grain grown in the Canadian North-west, will be assuredly carried oyer Canadian lines to Canadian ports, and shipped thence to Europe, he will have my support, and I believe the support of every other man on this side of the House.
That was the declaration made by the hon. leader of the opposition upon the floor of this House last session. Now, the scheme has been brought down, but he seems to think that scheme is not worthy of liis support. The first authoritative utterance which we had upon tile project was from the lion. ex-M'inister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), who was the first man apparently on the government side who originated the scheme of another transcontinental railway ; and where did he first launch liis determination on that subject ? Speaking in Vancouver last October, be said that we not only wanted another transcontinental road, but we wanted it right away-almost that evening, he was so much in earnest. Further than that, he said that he was doing his all in order to secure that road, and he led the people to believe, and properly so. that the scheme would be before this parliament at its coming session. All over the Dominion the question of a second transcontinental railway was spoken of. and the newspapers were full of it.
The next tiling that I pause to note is the introduction of the charter of the Grand Trunk racifie Railway Company, and its reference to the Railway Committee. That Bill was presented to the Railway Committee in April, and the first day for the discussion was set for May 7. On that day Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays made their statements before the committee. Upon the 13th day of May there was a strong discussion, in which the maritime members took the position that the railway should be extended from Quebec to Moncton. Reference lias been made to the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific people did not want to build further east than North Bay. and that the extension of the road to Moncton was forced upon them by the government. If that is the case, I sa.v all credit to the government. If they did not allow


Fletcher Bath Wade: the Grand Trunk Pacific to go into the wheat fields of the North-west, and bring the grain down to North Bay and' thence divert the bulk of it to American ports, then I say all hail to the government that prevented them doing that. The position the maritime members took on the 13th of May was this, that if Quebec were made the terminus of the road, that port would be closed for five months in the year. It would be a splendid port for seven months ; but for five months there would be no port at all ; therefore we asked that the road should be extended to a winter port In the maritime provinces. Was this a reasonable proposition or not ? "Would any sensible railway man build a railway across the continent from the Pacific and stop at Quebec ? I say he would not. This is a transcontinental railway, for the purpose of connecting the Atlantic and the Pacific. All these things must be taken into consideration. At the next meeting of the committee the company themselves proposed an amendment to the Bill making Moncton the eastern terminus of the railway. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals stated here the other day that that amendment was proposed by somebody who wanted to kill the scheme. Surely the hon. gentleman should not have made that statement, because he was sitting next beside the chairman of the Railway Committee at the very time the company moved the resolution themselves to extend the line down to Moncton.
1 want to draw attention to the position taken by my friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) before the Railway Committee. I find him reported in the St. John ' Sun ' to have said, and the report corresponds with my recollection with what took place :
Mr. Bell insisted on the Bill being placed in such a form so as to meet the wishes of the maritime provinces, who were almost unanimous in the opinion that the road must have its terminal at a Canadian port.
My hon. friend I suppose will not doubt the accuracy of this report. That was his position before the Railway Committee. What was the position of some others ? Let me refer to the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hale) while that project was before the Railway Committee, they sent this telegram to the St. John Board of Trade :
Important that civic bodies take immediate united and strong action re Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Apparent intention is to make Portland winter terminus, and if maritime provinces are to reap the reward for past sacrifices, a fight to the finish must be made.
That was the position taken by these two hon. gentlemen, and I believe that it was in consequence of that position the Board of Trade of St. John send the following telegram. or rather the mayor of St. John :

St. John, N.B., May 13. Charles S. Hyman, M.P.,
Chairman Railway Committee,
Ottawa.
The following resolutions were unanimously adopted by the common council of the city of St. John this morning :
Resolved, that the city of St. John has heard with regret that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company indicate an intention to build its line from the Pacific to the city of Quebec only and do not propose to construct and extend the same so as to have during the winter season a terminus at the open sea on Canadian soil. Which means that the company will do all its transatlantic business in winter through United States ports. And further resolved that such a course of procedure would do great injustice to the 'maritime provinces' and would be applying the money and resources of Canada to the upbuilding of a foreign city and port.
And still further resolved that this city respectfully, earnestly and most strenuously urges' the representatives in parliament from the city and county of St. John and from the province of New Brunswick and the maritime provinces generally to do all in their power to protect the interests of their provinces in the matter of preventing the injury that would be done if the proposed wrong should be carried out. And further resolved that the necessary protection against this impending injustice should be placed in the Act incorporating the company, should any such be passed.
And still further resolved that this city requests the representatives of Quebec, Ontario, and the other more western provinces and territories to so act in securing such protection that the road to be built by the company shall pass from ocean to ocean through Canadian territory in both -winter and summer and that such measures may be taken as will ensure the carrying through Canadian ports only of all freight originating or desired for any part of the Dominion of Canada.



WALTER W. WHITE.

[Stage Direction]
Mayor.
That is wliat the city of St. John thought of the matter. On the 20th of May, my lion, friend the leader of the opposition, who had for some time been periodically questioning the government as to when they were going to bring down their scheme, again interrogated them. Everybody knew that there was a government scheme to come as a corollary to the charter which went through the House, and frequently my hon. friend claimed the right to know "when this scheme was coming forward. On the 26th of May he had become so imp-patient that he impressed this House with the idea that the moment a scheme would be launched for the construction of a transcontinental railway, so earnest was he in his desire to have that work carried forward that he would leave his place in parliament, seize a pick and shovel, and hasten to work on the construction of the road itself. Let us see what he said on the 26th of May. He put his question to the First Minister, and premised it by quite a long speech. In that speech he told us that the whole country was clamouring for this railway. that the boards of trade, city councils
308i
and so forth all over the Dominion, from one end to the other, had passed resolutions demanding the building of this road, and he proceeded to read a resolution which had been passed by the board of trade of the city of Halifax. That resolution was as strong as any resolution could be in favour of building this road and in favour of Moncton. He also stated that the then Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) had received a strong telegram from the St. John Board of Trade to the same effect. I shall just cite a few words from the speech of the lion, gentleman :
Now. there is a strong feeling in the country, and particularly in the maritime provinces, and one that the government should especially keep in mind, that the government should insist on guarantees that the termini of any road to which government assistance is given shall be within the limits of the Dominion of Canada. Public meetings have been held, boards of trade have passed resolutions, municipal bodies have passed resolutions, not only in the maritime provinces, but throughout the length and breadth of Canada, insisting on this condition. Indeed. I am led to mention this matter to the House now because of a resolution which has iust been placed in my bands passed by the Halifax Board of Trade, and which I will take the liberty of reading to the House.
I shall not read the whole of the resolution, but here is a part of it:
And further resolved, that this board protests against government assistance of any kind being granted to any transcontinental railway unless a distinct and binding condition is enforced that said railway shall be built entirely on Canadian territory, and its export and import traffic shall be through Canadian termini, and that the rates of freight charged by said railway shall be as low via the ports of St. John, K.B., and Halifax, N.S., as rates charged via any port on the Atlantic seaboard.
And further resolved, that if aid is asked from the Canadian government by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway the interests of the maritime provinces should be safeguarded by compelling this railway company to commence the construction of the eastern portion of its line at Moncton, N.B., and complete it as far as the city of Quebec.
That is the resolution of the board of trade of the city of Halifax, in the c:unty represented by the leader of the opposition, and in presenting that resolution, lie prefaced it by remarks which showed that it had his entire sympathy, and I believe that at that time he was in sympathy with the purpose of that resolution and with the building of a road to Moncton.
A.i hon. MEMBER. He is now.
Fletcher Bath Wade: Perhaps he is, I cannot tell, but the exigencies of party have made him give other utterances. Upon this occasion he also read a telegram, which he said the then Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) had received from St. John. I do not know how it comes that on the 26th of May, the hon. the leader of the opposi-

tion was in a position to know the contents of a telegram to the then Minister of Railways and Canals. But he says that the exminister did receive this telegram, and I am prepared to take his word for it. Here it is :
Unless the Grand Trunk Pacific build their line through to some maritime province port we believe the export business will continue to go through an American port as in the past.
Mr. Hays rightly says shippers can route freight as they please and if the Grand Trunk are interested in route via Portland, shippers can be easily influenced to route practically every ton of export freight that way.
We cannot believe that any arrangement can be made

Here is the important part of it :
-between Intercolonial and Grand Trunk which will prevent this.
We urge in the strongest terms that no government assistance be granted to any transcontinental railway that does not undertake to build their line through to some maritime province port.
And, Sir, in the face of all these things, in the face of the declarations of the leader of the opposition, in the face of the speech made by the ex-Minister of Railways in Vancouver, in the face of all these representations from municipal councils and boards of trade, we had the ex-Minister of Railways standing in his place in parliament, declaring there was no one who wanted this road to Moncton except the people who hoped to make money out of its construction. It was a very strong remark to make against the province of New Brunswick, and I do not wonder that the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) resented it, as he did properly resent it in making his speech. I have only a few words more to say with regard to this Moncton business, and then I have finished. The ex-Minister of Railways contends that he left the cabinet because he believed that the construction of this part of the road would destroy the Intercolonial, and we have heard hon. gentlemen on the other side, taking their cue from him, declaring in the most pitiful tones that we are going to slaughter the people's railway. Have you heard one solitary member on this side of the House say anything against the Intercolonial or say that the Intercolonial would be injured by this road ? Not one. And I mean to say here that not only will the Intercolonial not be injured by the construction of this road to Moncton, but it will be benefited. And I will take occasion, before I resume my seat, to prove that to the satisfaction of every hon. gentleman present. But because the ex-minister is so convinced, he says, on that score, he resigned his seat in the cabinet. It is fair for me to see what he has said on other occasions. A few years ago, a charter was given to construct a railroad from St. Charles Junction at E6vis, to Connor station, near Ed-


Fletcher Bath Wade: mundston, and a subsidy was granted to this road. Subsequently, in the year 1901, there was a change desired in the western terminus of the road, and a resolution was introduced to allow the road to go either to St. Charles Junction or to Chaudiere. A discussion arose over this Bill. Be it remembered that this road runs substantially over the route of the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific from Chaudi&re to Connor, near Bd-mundston. There is no doubt about that. It has been surveyed ; the plans and profiles are in existence, and we know all about the country. Now it is well to see what position the ex-Minister of Railways and some other hon. gentlemen on the other side took with regard to that road. The first I will refer to is the hon. and valiant member from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes). Some hon. gentlemen had taken the position that this road would parallel the Intercolonial and interfere with the traffic. What does the hon. member for Victoria say ?
This will be another through Canadian Pacific Railway line, and when the new bridge is completed at Quebec the Canadian Pacific Railway will then be able to use its line on the north shore in connection with this line as an additional through-road to the sea.
But, though this was the hon. gentleman's position in 1901, to-day we have him telling us that it is impossible to build a road through that country, and, if it were built, the grades would be so tremendous that it would be impossible for it to carry any through-traffic. He spent hours and hours perusing the geological survey reports, and he has discovered that there are mountains in that country. He shows us that there are scores of hills there. Well, I suppose he has seen some hills and mountains elsewhere, and he has seen railways running along the base of those hills. This just shows the inconsistency of these hon. gentlemen. Bast year or the year before, they were all in favour of building this road, but to-day, when it is part of the government policy, they change their minds. The next man I will refer to is the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler), who said :
While it is important that nothing should he done to interfere with the Intercolonial Railway, it is more important we should find the shortest means of communicating to the wrest and the seaboard.
Now, let us, see what the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) said on that occasion. Referring to the speech of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), who had said that this road would interfere with the Intercolonial, the hon. ex-Minister of Railways said :
Solicitous and all as he is, and solicitous as I would naturally be, in relation to anything that would he harmful to the Intercolonial Railway, I would not hesitate to give support and assistance to this project, and in doing so would not feel that I was infringing in the slightest de-

gree on the interests of the Intercolonial Railway. These people have no railway communication. They have a very fine country, as I understand it, and they ought to have railway communication. They have been left practically out in the woods. Why should we refuse to give them the ordinary aid traversing a fertile country, as this railway does, because we might interfere with the local traffic which might be taken up and which might be diverted from the Intercolonial Railway ?
That was the sentiment of the ex-Minister of Railways when, in 1901, he was proposing to subsidize a road to run over the very route of the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific from Cliaudiere to Connor station, near Edmundston. I am only citing him against himself. I believe that he spoke the truth then. I am obliged to believe he spoke the truth the other day. But I am in a queer fix with regard to it. I have pointed out the situation, and I will allow somebody else to wrestle with it.
Now, Sir, we got to the position of our Bill being before the committee and passing that committee. And still there was impatience on the part of non. gentlemen opposite to have the government scheme. On the 30th of July, the government scheme was placed before them. And even then they were not happy. They had wanted it so badly, they had declared they could not wait, that the country could not wait; and they had clamoured for the Premier to bring down his proposal. And when the Premier brought down that scheme, and as he unfolded, one by one, the advantages it would bring to the Dominion of Canada, it was interesting to see the changes that came over the countenances of hon. gentlemen opposite. After the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had finished the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden. Halifax) sprang to his feet in a somewhat petulant and angry manner. What was the substance of his speech? He found fault with the fact that he had not been given a copy of this Bill. He made some criticism of the provisions of the Bill, which he has virtually taken back since. And then he informed this House that, notwithstanding the fact that the matter had been before the people of Canada for all this time, and discussed by all these bodies, he, on that thirtieth day of July, was not in a position to tell this House whether he was in favour of government ownership of railways or not. He came here on the 18th of August, and he told us that he had been studying this question about four or five weeks, and then he proposed the scheme that he has proposed.
In the meantime, while he was away preparing this scheme, this great measure, this great act of constructive statesmanship as it has been termed, his followers were left here alone, and they supposed that they would be doing the correct thing in following the lead of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), and they did so, and for this they should not be blamed by the leader of the opposition. They followed the hon. ex-Minister of Railways loyally, echoing his every sentiment. But when the leader comes back and finds out what has been going on he immediately proceeds to cast down the idol that they lave reared in his absence, and he gives them his policy, he compels them to come i',to line and gives them to understand that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals will have some trouble before ho can mount the horse of the hon. leader of the opposition. We have the two propositions before the country to-day, and it is between them that we have to decide. The government have announced their proposal, they have entered into this contract, and either this House must ratify that contract, or the government must go out of power ; that is the'position. If the government should go out of power the hon. leader of the opposition would be called upon to form a new government, and then the country would have before It as a government proposition the scheme which he has placed before parliament. Therefore the question for us to decide is which shall we have, the scheme proposed by the government or the scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition, and I now wish to contrast these two propositions.
The scheme proposed by the government has been so fully discussed that I shall refer to it only in the briefest possible manner. The first stipulation in connection with it is that the company shall deposit with the the government $5,000,000 in cash. Now, do hon. gentlemen suppose for one moment that business men would deposit $5,000,000 in the hands of the government, where they might lose every cent of it, simply for amusement ? Do these gentlemen, who have now become experts in railway management, railway operation and steamship operation, and who would have us believe that they know worlds about the freight rates and the tolls and the combinations- would these gentlemen set up their judgment against the judgment of the manager of the Grand Trunk Railway. If we were to listen to them we would conclude that that man is a lunatic and' does not know what he is doing. He talks about hauling the freight from the west over his railway but these gentleman say it cannot be done; the leader of the opposition says that it cannot be done. The leader of the opposition says that not six per cent of the grain carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway goes over the road to the north of Lake Superior. Well, if that be true, I must ask him to go to the debates of 1881, and read the speech of Sir Charles Tupper and the speeches of others on his side. Sir Charles Tupper then told the country, and he justified his bargain with the Canadian Pacific Railway by stating, that that road could carry all of the wheat produced in that vast

country of some two hundred odd million acres. That was the position which he assumed and that was the position assumed by all the supporters of that measure at the time. The government of that day desired fo make use of the water stretches but Sir Charles Tapper said that could not be done. And a greater man than Sir Charles spoke on that occasion. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was in the House then, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you know how many speeches he made in that session. They were happy days then, he only spoke three times, and the longest speech is the one from which I am going to quote, and that covers only two and a half pages of ' Hansard.' No wonder they were jolly in those days ! What did the hon. member for East Grey say ? As T was leaving the House the other day, I heard him say : ' The idea of carrying freight over 2,S00 miles of railway ! '
In 1881 he said :
The question is one of the utmost importance to the country from whatever point of view it be considered. If we consider the fact that the road will be a great commercial thoroughfare through a country that is over 4,000 miles long, that it will carry the trade of an area of country that consists of over 250 millions of acres of land, we cannot fail to regard the subject as of surpassing interest to the people of this country.
Then he justifies his not putting it before the electors. He said it was not necessary to put it before the electors and goes on to say :
The people finally concluded that the water stretches were only a sham. In every instance, when I have been able to take the sense of the people, I have invariably found that it was their desire to have the railway built by a company, and not by the government.
And so on. But I think the richest part of his whole speech is where he says that the building of this road was most important, because it would double the debt of the Dominion.
Now, the hon. member for East Grey upon this occasion followed the lead of all the others in saying that the waterways were a sham and could not be utilized. To-day we have him coming back here and saying that we must revert to the waterways.
Another witness has been brought forward here, I refer to Sir William Van Horne. It seems that the Canadian Pacific Railway are taking some interest in this question. One of the directors of that com-pany\has made a speech in this House, to which lam going to refer in a little while, but Sir William Van Horne, speaking in New York last year in regard to the Trans-Canada line said :
Canada, he said, has been adding sides to her hopper for a long time, but has neglected to enlarge the spout. She has for many years Mr. WADE.
been spending millions generously in the development of the interior, and her railways, but has neglected her outlet at the Atlantic. Her crops and industries have grown, and her hopper is full to overflowing, and the outlet at Montreal is not large enough. Her exports take the easy routes, by the great lakes and the Erie Canal to Boston and New York, simply because Canada sits comfortably by and does not see what she is losing.
He approves the Trans-Canada line in these words. He was asked what effect the building of the Trans-Canada line would have on the Canadian Pacific Railway and he replied :



TRANS-CANADA LINE.

[Stage Direction]
The position of the Canadian Pacific Railway is absolutely unassailable. For that reason it is our policy never to oppose anything. The Trans-Canadian road has started with better prospects than the Canadian Pacific had once. When the Northern Pacific road was built, every body thought it was away 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 the Atlantic to the Pacific to help us develop the country. [DOT] There is enough of it up here for us all.
That was tbe position taken by Sir William Van Home in this interview in New York. Let us see what he had to say the other day. In a recent interview he says :
Neither the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway nor any other allCanadian route,' said Sir William, ' will ever 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 problems in the west ever be solved by the construction of an all-Canadian route from coast to coast.'
Continuing, Sir William stated :
The Canadian Pacific Railway shipped every carload of wheat that it was possible to ship by their steamship line on the great lakes from Fort William to Owen Sound, and thence east' by rail, or else by way of Buffalo and the Erie Canal.
In the first place, he stated in this interview that he would hail with delight a second transcontinental railway, and in the second interview he says that such a line is not necessary, and tells us that they cannot haul wheat around the north shore of Lake Superior. If Sir William Van Horne would content himself to speak of his own road, I would not quarrel: he would be quite right. The Canadian Pacific Railway, as constructed around the north shore of Lake Superior, could not and cannot carry grain. Why ? Because the grades are too heavy.
It is not a heavy freight carrying road.
It cannot be built for such a purpose. That is the reason. Let me refer the hon. gentleman for a moment to this question of gradients and show what an important part it

plays. I am referring to * Tire Economic Theory of Railway Location,' by A. M. Wellington. Here we will find a table which shows the relative resistance of gradients. A locomotive which would draw 250 tons on the level would, with a four-tenth gradient, only be able to draw 125 tons, with a 1 per cent gradient it would only he able to draw 7i -43 tons, and with a 1 -20 per cent gradient it would only be able to draw 62-50 tons. That shows how important these gradients are, and I assume that the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, in constructing this road, will have that in view. It is a matter of mutual agreement between them as to the kind of road that is to be built, but the purpose has been determined upon, and that is to provide a road that will bring out the grain from the west. If that is done, it will be a road with what is known as normal gradients of four-tenths of one per cent as the maximum gradient. There may be short places on the road where you may get a stiffer grade than that, and where the momentum of the train would carry you over it, but where there is a long gradient, it should not be greater than four-tenths of one per cent. I believe that under this project of the government a line with the maximum gradient of four-tenths of one per cent can be secured. It may be a surprise to some lion, gentlemen opposite to know that in the course of two or three weeks there will be an instrumental survey completed from Winnipeg to Lake Abitibi, and that the engineers will report having secured a line with that maximum gradient If a road is built of that description from Winnipeg to Moncton, I cannot believe any man would stand here and say that grain cannot be carried to the maritime seaports. I believe that it can be carried there, I believe it will be carried there, and Mr. Hays, the manager of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, believes that it will be carried there. At any rate, representing a constituency in the maritime provinces, I think I am justified in giving him an opportunity to try the experiment of building that road there. I do not believe it is an experiment. ail the same. I think it is a fact, a certainty, that if you build the road from Winnipeg to Moncton of the nature and character that I have described the grain of the west will be brought down to the maritime ports. I believe that the bulk of the grain will be shipped from St. .Tolin, and I believe that Halifax will get her compensations in the manner which I will state hereafter. This is the contract which has bten entered into between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I shall not go over the different provisions of it, because I dare say hon. gentlemen are tired of it, but I will refer to the scheme which has been propounded to the House by the hon. leader of the opposition as an alternative scheme. Many
of the figures in connection with this have been given to the House, but I will find it necessary to go over them, as mine are somewhat different, and proceed upon a somewhat different basis. In order that there may be no mistake about the phraseology of the remarks made by the hon. leader of the opposition, I will quote his exact words :
If, however, the Canada Atlantic Railway commends itself to the judgment of experts, and from what information I can obtain with regard to it, I should think it ought so commend itself, and I would think that the extension of the Intercolonial Railway between Co-teau and Jacques Cartier Junction, and the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway to Depot Harbour, would place the Intercolonial Railway in a very much better position than it is at present.
First of all, I would like to know how that will place the Intercolonial Railway in any better position? The Canada At-antic Railway to-day is doing a certain business. It is doing that business well. What grain it gets it gathers up in a way that I will describe. What amount of that grain goes east to Montreal and would any more go east of Montreal if the government got this road? Would the road be as well managed under government ownership as it is at the present time? The hon. gentleman says he will either buy that road or build another. Let us say that he will build it. The first thing he has to do is to build 37 miles of road from Coteau to Jacques Cartier Junction, which will cost $1,295,000. To purchase the Canada Atlantic Railway I have put it down ns $17.000,000. There has been some question of that being the fair price of the road. There has been the statement made that this road was offered cheaper than that. I believe it was offered for a less sum than that. I believe the road to-day is held at a much higher figure than it was a year or two ago. I have been informed upon the best authority that the road cost the company upwards of $17,000,000. and if the government wanted to get the road they would have to pay that for it. Would the hon. gentlemen expect to pay less than what the road cost ?
Mr. HEYD.: It cost $20,000,000.


Fletcher Bath Wade: An hon. gentleman says that it cost $20,000,000. and there have been considerable betterments made since them It would cost nearer $20,000,000 than anything else, but let us say $19,000,000. It would cost him to extend the Intercolonial Railway to Depot Harbour $20,295,000. Then be says, at page 9000 of ' Hansard ' :
I have suggested the extension of the Intercolonial to the Georgian bay. If we acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway, we could build a line from that point to join the Canadian Pacific Railway at or near Sudbury. ... By that means the Intercolonial, besides being extended to the Georgian bay, could be joined by a

line about 120 miles in length to the Canadian Pacific Railway running north of Lake Superior.
This section, estimated by the hon. leader of the opposition to be 120 miles in length, would cost $30,000 per mile, making $3,600,000, so that it would require $23,895,000 to get the Intercolonial Railway to Sudbury. Then, at page 8999, he says :
I say it would be a proper thing and a wise thing for this government to acquire that railway from North Bay to Port William, and make
it a national highway of Canada	
giving to the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern and the Intercolonial as well as the Canadian Pacific Railway running powers over it.
I have figured out the cost of this,'getting my information from people who are in a position to judge as to the cost of acquiring that piece of railway, and I find that it will amount to $24,570,000, or to extend the Intercolonial Railway as far as Fort William, we have an expenditure of $4S,465,000. Then he says :
The third proposal which I would submit to the consideration of the House, as a sound policy, is to assist in Improving the grades of one or both lines from Winnipeg to Fort William, upon the condition that complete control of rates is obtained and that the Grand Trunk Railway as well as the Intercolonial Railway shall have running powers from Port William into Winnipeg.
It is estimated that to reduce the grades on the Canadian Pacific Railway between Fort \5 iiliam and Rat Portage it would cost $3,000,000, and that to reduce the grades on the Canadian Northern from Fort Wiliam westward would cost $1,500,000.
The leader of the opposition then proposes in this scheme to go to the Canadian Pacific Railway and purchase from them the lean and profitless part of their road.
I can now understand why one of the directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) comes here and makes the extravagant statement he has made in order to induce the House to uphold that scheme, and to relieve his company of the burden of operating this expensive piece of road, while securing for them this large amount of money out of the public treasury. But this hon. gentleman from West Toronto ; this director of tlie Canadian Pacific Railway is not satisfied with that. He wants $3,000,000 spent upon the other part of the Canadian Pacific Railway towards Winnipeg, and in return for that he will give running powers. And the most striking statement is, that the leader of the opposition proposes also to say to the Canadian Northern :	we will
spend $1,500,000 upon your road. The leader of the opposition is very anxious to find opportunities for spending money. Here is the striking part of that proposition :	Fortyfive miles of that road is ifT'American territory, and that forty-five miles is the section which is in the most need =of having Mr, WADE.
money spent on it. Therefore, the leader of the opposition would go into an American territory and would spend Canadian millions in the building up of the Canadian Northern Railway. But it has never entered into his head to consult the Canadian Northern Railway as to what they thought of such an arrangement as this, and whether they wanted to give running powers over their road. I cannot conceive, for my part, of them wishing to do so-why, they should want to be troubled with the Grand Trunk Railway and the government road coming over their line, I cannot understand ; but that is part of the hon. gentleman's policy. The next point of the hon. leader of the opposition was:	*
At some point on this side of the Rocky mountains there should be a common point, a junction between the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. From that on to the coast there should be one line, and that line should be built by these companies. By such an arrangement we should give them joint control ; there should be no difficulty about it, &c.
Now, the cost of building that road, say from Edmonton to Dunvegan, 250 miles at $28,000 a mile would be $7,000,000 ; from Dunvegan to Port Simpson, 555 miles at $48,000 a miles, would be $26,640,000 ; the terminals at Port Simpson would be sav $1,500,000 making $35,140,000. The leader of the opposition says further that running east from Depot Harbour to Mada-waska, a distance of 133 miles the grades are about one per cent, and of course that is an impossible grade for a grain carrying road. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) says he proposes to reduce those grades to a normal grade and this would cost $10,000 a mile or $1,330,000. It is quite evident that to accommodate the traffic, the line between North Bay and Port Arthur would have to be doubled tracked. That is, if you are going to get the business lie contemplates, he would have to double track that road, but if he does not get the business he contemplates, namely, the Canadian Pacific Railway business, and the Canadian Northern Railway business, he has got to expend an enormous amount on that section of the road between North Bay and Fort William in order to put it in proper condition for liis own use. Suppose he does get the traffic, he will have to double track, and the double tracking would cost him $8,190,000. He will also have to double track the Canada Atlantic Railway, and the double tracking of the Canada Atlantic Railway and putting it in proper condition would cost $4,560,000. Now, I have not figured on one cent for all these elevators, or for the deepening of the canals, or anything of that sort, but we find that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has expended $102,185.000-and how much are we benefited ? What has he aecomplisned thereby ? He has not accomplished any-
9S41

thing with the exception of allowing another road to be built from Winnipeg to Port Simpson. Let us see how this scheme of his would work out ; let us see whether in the ordinary course of events, applying our common sense to the situation, lie would reap the reward he expects. If he buys out the Canadian Pacific Railway he will expect them to use the road he has bought out, and has doubled tracked, and has put in good condition. I make bold to say, that tiler will not do anything of the sort." They will do one thing or the other, they will either use their Sault line and their waterways, or they will build another line where they should have built this line, namely : where the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is surveying. That is what they will do, and they will leave the government themselves to operate that piece of road. Will the Canadian Northern Railway come over it ? Certainly not. They have their own connections, and if they were going to make any other connections these connections would be in the direction of the United States, rather than that they should be compelled to carry their grain over this road located as it is. I am informed upon the very best authority, that no matter how much money you may expend, it is impossible to make the Canadian Pacific Railway north of Lake Superior a good freight carrying road. The leader of the opposition then has got nothing from the Canadian Northern Railway ; he has got nothing from the Canadian Pacific Railway; and who is his other customer ? His other customer is the Grand Trunk Railway. He is allowing the Grand Trunk Railway to go into the wheat fields and getting there, the Grand Trunk Railway will get their freight out of the wheat fields-because they have running powers, mark you, over to Lake Superior-they will bring part of it by the lakes, and the balance of it they will bring by rail, but how far ? They will bring it to North Ray and to North Bay only, where they will divert it upon their present system, and it will seek shipment from the American ports Just as they are doing at the present moment. Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) is maintaining this road for the use of the Grand Trunk Railway as far as North Bay, and for the use of himself. He is kind enough to the Grand Trunk Railway to maintain 70 miles of the road east of Sudbury, and between Sudbury and North Bay. which he cannot use for any purpose whatever.
Let us look to his other connections, and what he is going to do west? Why should the Grand Trunk Railway want to build a road from Edmonton to the coast under a scheme of this sort. They would not want to build it, and they wouid not want to operate it. Neither would the Canadian Northern want to do it under a system of this kind. He would build the road. Who would use it ? He would have to use it himself. What
is he to carry upon it ? He has no connections with the prairies-the Canadian Northern Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway are in there, but they have their connections east-and therefore he would have to operate his road from Edmonton to Fort Simpson as a government operated road.
Now, let us look at the business which the hon. member (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is going to do east. He comes to Winnipeg with his road extended at this immense cost I have spoken of, and when he gets to Winnipeg where is he going to get his freight ? He is not going to get it from the Grand Trunk Railway, because they have their connections east. He is not going to get it from the Canadian Northern Railway, because they have their connections. He is not going to get it from the Canadian Pacific Railway, because they have their connections. Then, I ask hon. gentlemen to pause for a moment, and consider where he is going to get the traffic for the Intercolonial Railway extended to Winnipeg; where he is going to get traffic sufficient to pay for the grease upon the axles. It is a most mad and ridiculous scheme, when you come to analyze it. ' He has expended a hundred odd million dollars, and he has landed us just where we are to-day, with the exception of the betterment of some of these roads.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) lias not criticised that portion of the government scheme from Winnipeg to the coast. He does not say that the amount we are giving to the company is too great. The only difference between his scheme and our scheme is this : that in building the mountain section he is going to pay the whole of the cost of it. and we are guaranteeing three-fourths of the cost only. In our case we have a company that must operate that heavy section-in his case he would have to operate it himself. His project west of Winnipeg certainly cannot bear comparison with ours.
I must now look to his project, after this expenditure of over $100,00,000 has been made. Now he has got us down to Quebec, with the present Intercolonial Railway and the present facilities. But, he says, I am going now to improve these water-ways ; first, I am going to buy out the steamboats of the Trans-Canada Transport Company. This is a very peculiar proposition, and one that should engage the attention of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. In the first place, the Canada Atlantic Railway has connections in the United States, For some fifty odd miles that railway runs down to Swanton in the United States, where it gathers up a large portion of the business carried on its line and on its boats in the shape of package freight, from Portland. Boston and other New England ports. This freight is carried on the boats from Depot Harbour to Duluth, Milwaukee and

Chicago. The company, in order to get over the United States coasting- laws, are obliged to have a part of their fleet of American bottoms. Therefore the hon. gentleman's proposition would require the government to engage in this enterprise of operating a railroad running into the United States, a distance of some fifty miles, and a line of steamships, a part of which must be American bottoms, carrying on a coasting trade between Chicago, Milwaukee, Duluth and Depot Harbour, and carrying this parcel freight from Swanton, In the United States, up to these points. That is the proposition. The government of Canada is to go into this enterprise, running railroads in the United States, running steamboats in the United States, and owning United States bottoms for the purpose of evading the coasting law. I wonder how long this would continue. Where does the Canada Atlantic Railway derive the bulk of Its grain traffic from to-day ? It gathers it up at Chicago, Milwaukee and Duluth. Rob it of that business, and the business of its steamers is virtually gone.
Here is another significant feature of the hon. gentleman's proposition. My hon. friend proposes to run a railway north of Lake Superior, and he proposes to run a line of steamships on the lakes in competition with his own railway. He is running a railroad to carry freight through a territory where hon. gentlemen opposite say it is impossible for it to pay ; and, to further damn it, he is going to run a line of steamships over the lakes for the purpose of competing with that very line. That is the proposition he makes to us.
But that is not so unreasonable as something I will refer to later. The hon. gentleman tells us this is not all of his scheme. He is going to improve the water-ways and the ports so as to enable them to compete with the water-ways and ports of the United States. If he docs that, he has first to deepen the Welland canal. Has he estimated the cost of that ? Has anybody been able to estimate the cost of deepening the Welland canal, in order to make it a competing canal with the American canals ? I have not. The amount of money necessary to do that would be enormous. In addition to that, he is going to deepen the Canadian channel of the St. Lawrence river to an extent that will permit deep-draught grain vessels to come down all the way to Montreal. Will any hon. gentleman on the opposition side be good enough to tell me what in bis judgment it will cost to deepen the Canadian channel of the St. Lawrence river to an extent to permit vessels of 20-feet draught to pass through that channel ? That question is so hard that I do not think any of them will attempt to answer it. They do not attempt to answer it. because they cannot answer it. No man living has pretended to make an estimate of what that would cost. But my hon. friend in eighteen Mr. WADE.
or nineteen days, has evolved a scheme by which he proposes to do it. My hon. friend would also have to deepen and equip the harbours. Suppose he equipped Depot Harbour like the harbours on the other side of the lake. I do not know what that would cost. I know that the authorities spent $4,000,000 or $5,00,000 on the harbour of Buffalo without reference to the approaches. Suppose my hop. friend deepened all these channels and equipped and deepened all these harbours by the expenditure of an immense amount of money, what would it all amount to ? He is operating the railway from Quebec to Winnipeg for the purpose of making it a great carrier, and at the same time he is operating a competing line by water all the way from Quebec to Lake Superior. This is his proposition. Which is he going to favour ? What part of this scheme does he want to be a success ? Is it the water part or the rail part ? One thing must be certain, that the hon. gentleman could not have considered the effect of what he was saying. That is the true outworking of his proposition, and I will leave it to the judgment of the hon. gentlemen present, and I appeal to the judgment of men who are posted on the transportation question.
Now, the hon. gentleman has got to Quebec. What have we to hope from him beyond Quebec ? He tells us that he will go and look over this route from Moncton to RiviSre du Loup and to Levis, and if he finds it, in his judgment, feasible, he will build this road for us, and will go into the paralleling business again. The hon. gentleman is not satisfied unless he has got two strings to his bow all the time. In speaking on this subject of transportation, I am appealing to the people of the country who have a knowledge of this question. This is transportation, according to the new light that has arisen before us-paralleling your road with water carriage; or. if you cannot parallel it with water carriage, then parallel it with another road, built and operated by yourself. He says it would be a bad thing to have the Grand Trunk Pacific Company operate the road to Moncton, because it would parallel the Intercolonial Railway ; but it would be a splendid thing to have the Intercolonial parallel itself over the same distance. That is the position. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say any more on that part of the scheme.
I want to say something now about colonization, and in that connection I wish to refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Pictou at a dinner given at the Garrison Club in Quebec this spring. See how the minds of great men change. The hon. gentleman made a speech at that dinner in connection with the Trans-Canada Railway, which he thought was the scheme of all schemes that should be carried through. Last night, after he had delivered himself as he did, it occurred to him that he had

made this speech, and he said something that would show the difference between it and the colonization scheme of his leader. The colonization scheme of his leader consists in this, that he would look over this country from Quebec to Winnipeg, and according as he finds it desirable, he will build a colonization road-forty, fifty, perhaps a hundred miles a year-but he will jog along at his own rate. And that is the scheme, which the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) is now upholding. But he did not entertain this view after he had been dining and wining so well at the club- I withdraw, Mr. Speaker, the wining. The ' Chronicle ' of Quebec says :
With the exception of one, all the members were Liberals. Mr. Bell of Pictou is a Conservative of fine physique,

This is very flattering.
-agreeable manners and a presence of commanding importance. He has a resonant and captivating voice. He possesses the attributes of a leader of men. He is a man of scholarly attainments, and he at once impressed his hearers. He warmly espoused the cause of the Trans-Canada project. The commoners were fairly well represented on this occasion. No few'er than two representatives from the extreme portion of Canada were present. Mr. MacPherson represented the extreme west. Ontario and Quebec were well represented. He regretted the absence of ministerial representation. But as a member of the opposition he hoped to be in a position to help forward the aims of those present. He was glad to meet the gentlemen present. He was proud of being a Canadian. He wanted to see a real Canadian people. Since 1867 we had become a nation. He stood for nationalism Instead of provincialism. He took great interest in the Trans-Canada scheme from early years of his life. He had a keen recollection of General Hewson's famous pamphlet, the route now adopted by the Trans-Canada people, which is really a real colonization route, from ocean to ocean. General Hewson proved that by going further north that we had the opportunity of developing the best resources of the country. From a national point of view, we should have another route, which meant the compacting of rur country and an increase of our population. Quebec people had shown a strong national feeling in this matter. Quebec must eventually be the greatest port of Canada-a port which is unrivalled in the whole world. The largest ships afloat can ride safely in the harbour of Quebec. And then Quebec is hallowed ground. It is endeared all round the globe by its historical associations. French and English people have united in making this city strong, historical and national. We want to see the traffic of Canada increase and become the great transportation centre of this country. Quebec should rival New York. In this hope the people of the maritime provinces joined heartily. We must have population. We must have depth, we must have a back country. We are a people of undeveloped resources.
That is pretty good talk, and that is the talk of the hon. member for Pictou. speaking in tbe interests of Canada, speaking in
the interests of the maritime provinces, speaking in the interests of the county he represents, and before tbe party whip was snapped over him, after the leader of the opposition brought down his scheme.


John William Bell: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, he will find that what I did say then coincides almost precisely with what I said last night.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It coincides with the explanation which the hon. member attempted to make last night, but in which he failed utterly. What is the difference between tbe location of the Trans-Canada Railway, as contemplated at the moment he made that utterance, and the location of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as contemplated at present.


John William Bell: About 150 miles.


Fletcher Bath Wade: About 150 miles, the hon. gentleman says. I do not think he is in a position to tell whether it is 50 or 150 ; but suppose it is 150, it is that many miles further up in this wilderness they have been talking about, and it is carrying that road back of Lake Winnipeg through an uninhabited country from Quebec all the way across.
An bon. MEMBER. Sub-Arctic.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Sub-Arctic was the expression used. These gentleman, when they first started out against this scheme began to belittle and abuse the country ; and when the Finance Minister went on to prove that this was a good country and to make use of certain official reports, the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) said that these reports were cooked.


Mr. BROCK.: I saidl that the summaries were incorrect


Fletcher Bath Wade: We will not go to the summaries, but we will see if the reports were cooked or not I turn up page 36 and I find a summary of the character of the soil made by aa explorer :
As regards the soli of this whole area south of Lake Abitibi and extending in a south-westerly direction to the. Black river, we can say that it is excellently suited to agriculture, being a fine sandy clay loam, just sandy enough to be easily workable.
This report is signed by M. B. Baker. I would ask the hon. member for Centre Toronto if he knows Mr. Baker. He does not know him. Well, Mr. Baker has sworn to this report as being true before Mr. J. A. G. Cuozier, commissioner, can be say aintyf-thing against that gentleman ? Let me turn to another report by Mr. J. M. Bremner and Mr. James M. Milne, who have examined 3.840,000 acres of land. Does the hon. member know Mr. Bremner and Mr. Milne ? He is silent. Does be know anything against them 1 Does he know anything to their discredit ? They have sworn to the troth

of their report. In what particular is it wrong ? I would refer next to the report of Mr. E. L. Fraleck, does the hon. member know this gentleman or anything to his discredit ? Mr. Fraleck tells us about the railway facilities, is there anything the hon. member can say against him ? Is he a man who would swear to a lie ? Will he tell the truth or not ? Would he put a statement on paper which is false and swear to it and let it be published throughout the world ? Here is the report of Mr. Daniel Proctor, does the hon. gentleman know anything against him or not ? He has appended his name to a report in this book. It is a sad spectacle that in opposing this scheme these gentlemen find it necessary, not only to decry their country, but to abuse and slander public officials.


William Rees Brock: W7ill the hon. gentleman allow me to interrupt ? I defy him or anybody else to show that I hare attempted to defame any officer connected with the whole thing. I merely spoke of the summary read to the House. I did not allude to a single individual ; and did not intenl to do it, as the hon. gentleman well knows.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I am glad the hon. gentleman sees the error of his ways. Repentance may be late, but not too late. When the Finance Minister quoted this report and said it was a report emanating from the King's Priuter at Toronto, an official report, what did the hon. gentleman say ? He used these words : ' The whole thing) is a humbug.' These gentlemen, when out of office, are dangerous parties to deal with ? They abuse every public official almost in every province. They have abused and slandered the judges upon the bench. Truly, as has been said of them, when they are out of office. they are like a she-bear robbed of her cubs the she-lion, robbed of her whelps. They can see no good in any body or anything. Ijf It be necessary to gain their end that they should decry their country and abuse this that or the other man, they do not hesitate a moment to do it. They started out first to assert that the country traversed by this railway was valueless. It has been shown beyond question that it is magnificent country all the way down from Winnipeg to Quebec. The hon. gentleman shakes his head. But we have a mass of testimony to show what kind of a country .1 is. Is it patriotic on the part of these gentlemen to circulate throughout the world the statement that this great portion of Canada is a wilderness, that it is not fit for cultivation or habitation ? Is that a patriotic thing to do ? Is that the way they are aiding the building up of Canada ? What are they doing it for ? Simply for more party exigencies. I know that the common sense of the Conservative party does not commend this course. I know that hon. gentlemen take this course reluctantly. I know it is sad for them to be compelled to adopt ft.


Fletcher Bath Wade: 


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) will permit me-he has made a pretty strong statement with regard to some hon. gentlemen on this side. Will he give the name of any hon. gentleman on this side who has indicated the course he speaks of or who has said one sentence in the direction of which he has spent some minutes in describing ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Certainly. I would not make a statement of that sort if it were not borne out by facts. The first gentleman to speak on that side after the leader of the opposition on the 30th of July last, the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), told us that this country was a series of muskegs and granite ridges, that there was no timber and that the region was unfit to habitation. That was virtually repeated by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) took the same position. I would ask my hon. friend from Both well (Mr. Clancy) to read the earlier speeches of hon. gentlemen on his own side before their Moses returned from Mount Sinai and cracked the party whip over them. Let the hon. gentleman read those speeches and cull from the remarks made derogatory to the character of the country through which this road is to run, and he will find that he has scores of pages of such statements. I am reminded that the hon. leader of the opposition from the province of Quebec (Mr. Monk) stated that this was a sub-artic region. The hon. member for South Lanark said it was a wilderness, and speaking of the country traversed by the road between Quebec and New Brunswick, he said it was a wilderness and a worthless country. But these hon. gentlemen have found it necessary to abandon that position. They were driven from it; they became ashamed of it. And now they undertake to say that they never said these things. They will wish they had never said them when they get before the people. As to this country between Quebec and Moncton, I refer to the statements of the ex-Minister of Railways when he said that this was a splendid country. But this was in the days before the hon. gentleman had commenced to dicker With gentlemen on the other side. He al-, ways spoke the truth in these days. He said then that this was a splendid country and a grand place for a railroad. And we say so to-day.
Now, I wish to make a statement with regard to the building of the road from Quebec to Moncton. The hon. leader of the opposition made some sneering remarks about Moncton being the terminus and the port for this road. These remarks were quite unnecessary.	Nobody contemplates
Moncton as the end of the road. But Moncton is the objective point, and from Moncton it can run to Halifax over the Intercolonial. and from Chlpman It can run to St. John over a line to be built down to

Norton. I wisli to make a statement with regard to this. There has been a great deal of disputing here as to whether this would shorten the line or not. Hon. gentlemen on the other side say it will shorten it by forty or fifty miles. It is contended on our side that it will shorten it by from 120 to 140 miles. I will take this position, and I am ready to demonstrate it to any competent railroad authority, that even if this project does not shorten the road one mile, it is necessary, first in the interest of the country, and second in the interest of the project itself, that this railway should be carried to Moncton and should not stop at Quebec. We are told that there is no security for the operation for the extension of this road. If we compel the company to build their road to Moncton and make a through connection to St. John and Halifax, that is the strongest kind of security that we can have that the road will be operated over the whole eastern division, because when we have got them there and obliged to operate their trains, they must bring their business that way in order to make the line pay, and it will be profitable for them to do so.
In the maritime provinces, we are a million of people, we are the older provinces. We are ready to help all other parts of the Dominion, but we want to share in ail national movements. And we have a right to do so. We in Nova Scotia did not seek to get into this confederation ; we were pitch-forked into it without being consulted. It was unwise for the hon. member for Pictou to refer to the strained feeling at that time.	I venture to say that
if any other part of the Dominion had been treated as Nova Scotia was treated when it was brought into confederation there would have been a rebellion. The fact that there was not a rebellion in the case of Nova Scotia is proof of the extreme loyalty of the people of that province. We were forced into confederation, but, having obtained better terms we have accepted confederation ; we are here to stay a nil to take our part in working out the future of this country loyally and to the best of our ability. We are prepared to spend money for the development of the great west, for we know that from the great west we have a right to expect a large measure of the prosperity and success of this Dominion. We are prepared to spend money on our waterways and on every other desirable public work. But, while we are prepared to do that, we feel that we have a right to demand to be taken into account in any national scheme that is formulated. Not a mile of this proposed road will be in Nova Scotia, not a mile of it comes within twenty-four or twenty-five miles of our border. But we see the advantages that will accrue to us from the operating of the road, and we have a right to demand those advantages. There was an attempt made in
this discussion to foment jealousy between St. John and Halifax. It failed. Members from the province of Nova Scotia, from the province of New Brunswick and from the province of Prince Edward Island, came together and agreed that here should be no jealousy and no bickering, but that we should all unite in promoting the welfare of our maritime ports.


An hon. MEMBER.: The Liberal meni-bers.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Yes, the Liberal members, but we were aided to a certain extent by the Conservative members. Now, I wish to make a declaration. I expect that when this road is built to Moncton it will be necessary to double-track the Intercolonial into Halifax. That would be of enormous value to the city of Halifax, for in its wake will come, if it does not- come before, the much-desired fast Atlantic service. A part of the project is to build from a point on Ibis line near Cliipman to Norton on the Intercolonial, so as to connect St. John. And I, for one, as a representative of the province of Nova Scotia, will refuse to accept the advantage of The Halifax connection unless the St. John connection is provided at the same time. Let there be absolute fairness between us. We are working together for the common good of the lower provinces, and I believe that there is an honest intention on the part of every member from the maritime provinces to do so. And I make this public declaration that I will stand by my agreement with regard to the city of St. John. Will any man rise and tell me that if we build this road down to Moncton and get the connection from Chipman into Norton and so to the east side of the Harbour of St. John, that that city is not going to be greatly benefited by it ? I believe the bulk of the heavy freight trade will go to the city of St. Johu. I have never been one of those who decried that port, nor am I going to. We have two splendid ports in the maritime provinces. Shall we close them, or fail to take advantage of them ? Or shall we shape our national policy so asto develop these ports and bring to them the traffic of Canada ? We have in Halifax a harbour capable of receiving the united fleets of the world, a harbour fifteen miles in depth. Is that not a heritage worthy of our pride ? Is it not an advantage to the Dominion government to have it there ? In St. John we have a harbour nearer to the producing parts of Canada by some miles, and capable of doing an immense business. All she wants is the facilities, and by this project we shall give her the facilities. We are going to give both these cities a chance to live. We shall not give them ns the hon. leader of the opposition suggested, a ' fighting chance.' He said that if the road lie proposed should be built, it should give them a ' fighting chance.' We are going to give them more than a fighting

9S52
chance; we are going to insist on their having an equal chance with the other parts of the Dominion.
Now, let us look to the province of Nova Scotia; how are we to be benefited? Halifax will be benefited by ah increase in her population, an increase in her commerce, an increase in her business, an increase in every way. We have within a few miles from our province, St. John, which will certainly advance with rapid strides if this' scheme is carried out. We will have these two cities doubling in population, in communication with the outside world, with lines of steamers running from both of them as this contract provides. Let me refer to the county which I represent. Annapolis is forty-five miles from St. John, one of our natural markets aud like all of the counties of western Nova Scotia it is in sympathy with St. John. We want to see St. John built up and we will do anything we can to build it up, because it will give a larger market to the people of these counties than it has done in the past. Halifax, too, will give an increased market to the farmers in the county I represent. To-day we are about to build a railway from Middleton, connecting with the south shore system to a point on the Annapolis basin which will give closer connection between St. John and Dlgby, Yarmouth, Shelburne ard Queens counties. These counties will all be benefited by the upbuilding of St. John as well as by the upbuilding of Halifax. Then we are building on the railway along the south shore to Halifax and we are about to build one along the same shore to the eastward. Think of the advantage this road will be in the connection it will give to the fishermen along the shores. To-day the products of the fisheries of Nova Scotia are worth about 88,000.000 a year and they are increasing rapidly from year to year. But where do we sell ? We have no market at home and we cannot get into the west now because the rates are prohibitive. We have to send our fish to the West Indies and to South America, we have to seek markets abroad, and these markets are failing. We desire another market and this will be given to us by the Grand Trunk Pacific. As feeders for this line we will have, going west from Halifax, the Halifax and South Western, and the Dominion Atlantic Railways, and the Middleton and Victoria Beach Railway connecting with it. and we wTill have the other road which is projected eastward to Guysborougli. Thus we will have the whole fishing district of the province of Nova Scotia brought at once in touch with this line that runs through into the west. Today we are not selling any of our fish products to the west at all. Why ? Because the freight rate is prohibitive. A member of the other chamber told me that he had paid freight on fish from St. John to the territories 83 a hundred pounds. 83 a hundred !. Almost the first cost Mr. WADE.
of the fish. It is prohibitive. We now get only a small quantity of our dried fish into the western markets and that is tlie only fish we can sell in those markets. If this road is constructed, it will open an enormous market and we can send one-half our fish products into the west. This will give mutual trade and will provide the railway with freight to carry westward. Heretofore the trade has been all jug-handled, it has been coming from the west to the east, the people of Ontario and Quebec have been sending freight to Nova Scotia, but they have taken scarcely anything from us in return as the figures will show. When this road is completed we purpose changing that condition of affairs to a certain extent and propose sending our products into the west in fair exchange.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose for recess, I was speaking of the advantages to be derived by the province of Nova Scotia from the operation of this railway, aud referring particularly to the fishing industry, which is such an important one in that province. I did not finish saying quite all that I intended saying in regard to the fishing trade. Thes products of our fisheries at the present time do not bring the returns that they will bring when this scheme is perfected and when the western trade that I have spoken of is developed, because fresh fish will be shipped west in refrigerator ears and the produce of the fishermen will bring very much higher prices. This trade has already started in a small way with the limited amount of refrigerator cars we have on the Intercolonial Railway. of course, the trade has not been carried as far west by any means as we anticipate, but I know that at a single station in the county of Guysborough during the first year the refrigerator cars were put on, the amount collected on the freight traffic from fresh fish alone was $17,000. The trade is one capable of enormous development, and we have a right to expect that with this scheme we shall be put in the position to take advantage of it. I will say in regard to my own county-while I take a general and broad view of these things I have a right to look to the interests of the county that I represent-that we have a great fruit trade growing up in the Annapolis valley. It is increasing by leaps and bounds. During the present year. I believe there will be a shipment from there of 500.000 barrels of splendid apples, and in the course of five or ten years that will be increased to a million. A great drawback to the industry is the lack of adequate transportation from the province to the London market. That is owing to the fact that they have not the proper steamship accommodation. With this scheme perfected and with the com-

pauy running lines of steamships from St. John and Halifax, as they are obliged to do under the terms of this contract, this difficulty will be removed. I could go on and enumerate numerous other things that will be of advantage to the province of Nova Scotia. They were detailed at great length and with carefulness by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), and I will not delay the House further on that subject.
Now, I wish to say a word about the line of this road from Quebec to Moncton and to show how everything has been perverted by the other side. It has been represented that we projmse to build a line which is to run up over the mountains to Riviere du Loup. We do not contemplate anything of the sort. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has stated in the House and the newspaper controlled by him has led the people to believe that we are going to run an air-line from Edmundston to Moneton. We do not intend to do anything of the sort. Nobody has ever said anything of that kind, and the figures and distances which have been presented to the House show quite differently. The course of the road as proposed will carry it through the following counties in New Brunswick : Madawaska, Victoria, Oarletou, York, Sun-bury, Queen's and Westmoreland to Moncton, and then with the branch from Chip-man to St. John, it will traverse the counties of King's and St. John. Thus, it will traverse nine out of the fifteen counties of New Brunswick. That is the course that is adopted. Hon. gentlemen opposite have cited Sir Sandford Fleming as giving an opinion in his report and in his conversation against that line. I say that Sir Sandford Fleming has never reported against it and that uo line can be found in bis report against it, and further than that, I say that the bon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), who has had a conversation with Sir Sand-ford Fleming, as he says, entirely misunderstood that gentleman. He does not know the locality, and lie is not in a position to understand what Sir Sandford Fleming does say. I have had conversations with Sir Sandford Fleming. I do not feel at liberty to give these conversations here in the House without consulting him, but I can say this much, that Sir Sandford Fleming never expressed an opinion against that line and I will undertake to say that he never will express an opinon against it, and further 1 would say that if he is consulted about the line I have pointed out he will give it his entire and absolute approval. The distances presented by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) show conclusively the line we are going to take. The line will start at Chaudi&re Junction and go to Connors Station, from Connors to Edmundston, from Edmundston to St. Leonard, from St. Leonard to Plaster Rock, from Plaster Rock to Boiestown, from Boiestown to Chipman. and from Cbipman to Berry's
Mills, on the Intercolonial Railway, with the alternative of going from ChaudiSre Junction to Connors Station, from Connors Station to Edmundston, from Edmundston to the Nashwaak bridge, from the Nashwaak bridge to Chipman, and from Chipman to Moncton and St. John, both of the routes going down the valley of the St. John river, the only question being as to where the road should turn off to go to the eastward. The distance that would be saved by this route would be over 120 miles. I believe that a line of railway can be secured with these distances, and as I said before, if the distance was only 50 miles less, as a matter of railroading, as a matter of transportation, it is absolutely, necessary that this road should be built down to Moncton with a dividing of the line at Moncton, from Moncton to Halifax, and from Chipman to St. John, in order to perfect the scheme. But, let us look now at other distances in connecti >n with this line. When this read is completed, with steamers bn the Atlantic Ocean and with steamers on the Pacific Ocean, we shall then have a distance from Liverpool to Yokohama of 10,135 miles. By the Canadian Pacific Railway the distance is 10,445 miles, and by New York, 10,830 miles, so that we are making a saving in the distance between Liverpool and Yokohama by way of Halifax of 700 miles over that of the route by way of New York. The distance upon the Atlantic must be taken into consideration in connection with this matter. From Liverpool to Halifax the distance is 2,450 miles, from Liverpool to St. John 2,700 miles, and from Liverpool to New York 3,050 miles. While I am upon the question of distances, let us look at the distances in connection with the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition. From Quebec to Winnipeg by this proposed line the distance is substantially 200 miles greater than from Quebec to Winnipeg by the Grand Trunk Pacific line. If we save 200 miles in the distance between Quebec and Winnipeg and save 120 miles between Quebec and Moncton, then we save 320 miles between Winnipeg and the ocean ports. Now, there was a statement made here that the Intercolonial Railway was going to be destroyed, that it was going to be put out of business. The hon. leader of the opposition went out of his way to try to twist and pervert the words of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell), and he stated that the hon. member for Hants had stated in effect that we would either have to give away or sell the Intercolonial Railway. The hon. gentleman was not in the House when the hon. member for Hants made his able speech here. If he had been, no doubt he would have heard the hon. member for Hants for ten or fifteen minutes ably demonstrating that this scheme would not injure the Intercolonial Railway in the slightest, but on the contrary would be a benefit to it. That was the position that

the bon. member for Hants took. Now, let us look at this question of injuring the Intercolonial Railway, I mean to say here that this scheme is entirely separate and distinct from the Intercolonial Railway in the purpose for which it was designed and in the purpose which it will serve. It has nothing to do with the extension to the Georgian bay and the Intercolonial Railway one way or the other. Neither has it anything to do with deepening the waterways or the Georgian Bay canal scheme. It does not interfere with any of these projects in the slightest degree. It is an enterprise standing by itself. I want to draw hon. gentlemen's attention for a short time to some figures which I have here in regard to the Intercolonial Railway, obtained from the manager, Mr. Pottinger, in regard to traffic returns, which are as follows :-

Earnings.
Traffic originating in Montreal and vicinity, and between that and
Lfivis	$ 563,177 37
Traffic originating in Levis and
vicinity	  128,959	92
From maritime provinces destined for Montreal and vicinity or points
west of Ldvis	 304,975	20
From maritime provinces destined
Levis and vicinity	 56,326	39
(A.) Traffic from Drummond and joint section, including Montreal, and from Levis, Point Levis and Quebec to maritime provinces.. .. 374,101 00 (B.) Traffic from maritime provinces to Drummond and joint section, including Montreal, and to Ldvis,
Point L6vis and Quebec	 361,301	59
(A.) Traffic from Ontario from west
via Montreal, G.T.R	
671,740	87From west via Ste. Rosalie, C.P.R.	29,307	08From west via St. John, C.P.R...	79,938	07
(B.) Traffic to points in Ontario and
west via Montreal, G.T.R	
154,694	66To west via Ste. Rosalie, C.P.R..	71,407	18To west via St. John, C.P.R	11,115	69Total	$2,807,045 02
Now, I make bold to say that the only portion of that traffic which will be affected by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be that portion emanating and terminating in the vicinity of Levis. That is all. All the freight that is gathered up at Montreal, or which is delivered to the Intercolonial at Montreal by the Grand Trunk Railway, will, when received by the Intercolonial Railway, be carried on the Intercolonial Railway to its point of distribution at the maritime provinces, and not one dollar's worth of that freight will be affected by the new road. All the freight that is gathered up on the Drummond County section of the Intercolonial Railway will be retained upon the Intercolonial Railway and carried to the point of distribution, which is also true of the freight coming back. Therefore, the only traffic of the Intercolonial Railway which we will have inter-Mr. WADE.
fered with at all 'will be the portion of the traffic at Levis, which emanates there and which terminates there, and which is comparatively very small. Now, as a compensation for that to the Intercolonial Railway, let us see what we have. I say that in my judgment the building of this road is going to materially increase the traffic upon the Intercolonial Railway. Nobody on this side of the House has any idea of putting the Intercolonial Railway out of business, or of destroying its efficiency in any way. We hope to see the Intercolonial Railway go forward and progress and become a paying institution, instead of being a drag upon the country. Let us see then what advantages the Intercolonial Railway will get by the scheme that is being propounded. In the first place, we will have a rental from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway for the running rights over the Intercolonial Railway from Norton to Halifax and from Norton to St. John. That will be a very considerable item, and that is something that will not cost the country a cent ; it is like that much money found. Then we will have all the traffic emanating upon the new line which is carried to Levis and is destined for Montreal and points in the west, because this road cannot touch that. This new road will have to deliver to the Intercolonial Railway at Levis or Chaudiere all the freight which It has gathered up from or down to the maritime provinces and which is destined to points upon the Intercolonial Railway and the Drummond County section of ft, for Montreal and other points west of Montreal, and vice versa. Then all the traffic that emanates upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway for a long distance west of Quebec upon this through line-and it will be large-and which Is destined to points on the Intercolonial Railway along the River St. Lawrence or around the north shore of New Brunswick, and up from Levis towards Montreal ; all that traffic going and coming must be delivered to the intercolonial Railway, and the Intercolonial Railway will get the advantage of it. The great theory in railway business at the present time is that the more railways you have the more traffic is created, provided, of course, that railways are not in actual competition with each other. In addition to this, if this scheme accomplishes what I expect it will -and we have a fast Atlantic service coming into Halifax, and we have the lines of steamships I have spoken of-by how much would that increase the business that will be carried on the Intercolonial Railway ? I think it is safe to predict that when this road has gone into operation that the business of the Intercolonial Railway from the start will be increased very, very largely, indeed, and that that increase will continue. The talk of the new road injuring the Intercolonial Railway, or putting the Intercolonial Railway out of business, is to my mind ridiculous.

There is one striking thing about this whole matter, and that is, that it is not the friends of the Intercolonial Railway who are talking about any trouble of this sort. That talk comes from the very gentlemen who have been raving against the Intercolonial Railway for years and years. These gentlemen never had any love for the Intercolonial Railway, and they have no love for it now, but they insincerely profess this love in order that they may base on it an argument against the government scheme.
I would like to say a word, Sir, concerning what will be accomplished for the province of Ontario by the construction of this road, so far as its extension to the maritime provinces is concerned. To-day these provinces by the sea are the best markets that the people of Quebec have for their manufactured goods and other commodities. Go to the freight sheds in the city of Halifax and see the immense quantities of material that come down from the province of Ontario-agricultural implements and machines of all descriptions ; mowing machines, reaping machines, carriages, carts and everything in the shape of manufactured goods. In addition to that, the provide of Ontario ships down to us enormous quantities of hams, and bacon, and beef, and pork, and butter, and flour, and pease, and beans, and other such products. We are the great market, and we have always been the great market for Ontario. If, Sir, by this scheme the maritime provinces are made more prosperous and their population is increased, is not that market made much larger for Ontario, and will not Ontario be benefited to that extent ? That is a simple proposition, and it is a matter of surprise that any man living in the province of Ontario and interested in that province should not be anxious, and deeply anxious, to have the maritime provinces prosper so that the market for Ontario may be extended.
I shall have now, Mr. Speaker, to refer, for a few moments, to some criticisms on this Bill, but before proceeding to that, I would be doing an injustice to my hon. friend from King's (Mr. Fowler) and to my hon. friend from Colchester (Mir. Gourley), if I did not cite them as authorities in connection with this proposition to build to Moncton. When this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway charter was before the House on the 22nd of June, the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) delivered himself. These two gentlemen were anxious then to have a provision put in the charter compelling the Grand Trunk Railway to commence the work at Moncton at the same time as they commenced at Quebec and the west. Nobody at that time ever thought of proposing Moncton, except these gentlemen from the maritime provinces, and here is what the member for King's (Mr. Fowler) said :
I have no objection whatever to the extension down to Moncton. I am in perfect accord
with that, but I want something more than a mere provision in the charter to show me that it is going to be built. That may suit the hon. gentleman for Annapolis but it does not suit me.
He wanted to make it perfectly sure and . certain ; he wanted to have a cast-iron provision put in ; he wanted it put in the charter that the company must build to Moncton, and that they must build to Moncton at the very same time that they were building west of Quebec. That was his position then.
Now I must cite another celebrated authority on the other side of the House to show what his ideas were in regard to this matter. I refer to the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley). Hon. gentlemen will remember a discussion which came on in the House over this charter, when an attempt was made to change the terminus, from Moncton to St. John. A similar discussion had previously taken place in the-Railway Committee, and an amendment was moved to that effect. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals voted for that resolution to build a railroad to St. John, although he now so violently opposes building on to Moncton. The arguments were so strong against his position in defending St. John Harbour that I found it necessary to go to his rescue to a certain extent, and I stood beside him and upheld St. John as a good port, which could do good business for this Dominion. After I had finished and had spoken of our right to. have the road to Moncton, the hon. member-for Colchester rose and said :
I have been delighted with the remarks of the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade). They have the right ring. I think a maritime province man should be big enough to say : Let any port in the maritime province win in the game ; bring your route to the maritime provinces and let God and nature determine the port. People are easily caught by catch phrases. Start a catch phrase up in this country and it takes away all the argument you can make in a year. One hon. gentleman deprecates paralleling the Intercolonial. Why, we want railways in this country paralleling every eight or ten miles. Parallel railways every eight'or ten miles and you bring in population, you bring in industry, and you produce wealth.
That was the position of the hon. gentleman at that time. He went on to say further :
I do not want to have to argue that the Intercolonial Railway is a disadvantage to Nova Scotia or an advantage to Ontario, but I waut the people of Ontario to understand that we in Nova Scotia regard it more as a national necessity in favour of Ontario than in favour of Nova Scotia.
Let me cite another authority in this connection, an authority which we usually respect, and which I think hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House respect. On this memorable 26th day of May, when the hon. leader of the opposition presented and



endorsed the resolution passed by the Board of Trade of Halifax, the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) made use of this language :
As I said before, we have a choice of deciding between two companies for the building of this road. My opinion is that if the government should decide to give any assistance for that purpose, the company which is entitled to the preference is the Grand Trunk Railway Company. That compaay has done a great deal to open up this country, they have spent a great deal of money, and have received very little return for it. It may be the fault of the management of the company, but the fact remains that for the vast sums of money which that company has invested and which have had the effect of developing this country more than any other railway except the Canadian Pacific Railway, it has received very little return in the way of profits. I think the policy of the government should be to have this road built as far north as possible, to pass as near as 'possible to the height of land in order to tap n region of country which has not been opened up at present.
Now, may I be permitted to refer to some criticisms of this contract ?-and 1 will deal with them just as briefly as I possibly can. One great criticism made is that the capitalization of the company is too great; and the argument is advanced that the freight rates will be based on the capitalization. This fallacious theory has been put forward in this House on several occasions, and also in tlie Railway Committee. The only authority ever adduced iD support of that argument is that is was advanced before the board of railway commissioners somewhere in the United States. But there cannot be found a solitary word or line -to show that the decision of any board or tribunal fixing the toils on a railway has ever been based on its capitalization. How ridiculous that would be. For my part, X would not care what the capitalization of the railway was. If anything enters into the determination of the tolls, of the railway, it is the actual cost, and not the capitalization ; and with the provisions in this contract, by which the government can ascertain to a cent exactly what the road cost, they have full control over the fixing of the rates. There is where government control comes in. So long as you have the company under the control of the government, not only by tlie general laws of the Dominion, but by a special contract their rates will be under the control of the government. One of the greatest hardships which have existed in the west in the past has been the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were given a free hand to charge any rates they saw fit until their profits amounted to ten per cent, not upon their capitalization or upon what the railroad had cost them, but upon its whole cost, both the portion built by the company and the portion built by the government and given to the company.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I find that the rate of freight by rail and water at the present time from Chicago to Montreal is 3A cents per bushel, and that the rate from Winnipeg to Montreal by rail and water is 13i cents per bushel. Now, I am beginning to believe that these gentlemen from the North-west who have been contending about these rates for so long knew what they were talking about. It is a very anomalous condition that grain can be carried from Chicago to Montreal for 3J cents, while it costs 13J cents to carry it from Winnipeg to Montreal. I do not pretend to be able to discuss these different freight rates, and X shall not attempt to do it. I think it would have been as well if some of the gentlemen on the other side of tlie- House had been as modest about that matter as I am.


Mr. MURRAY.: The Georgian Bay canal would help that.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The Georgian Bay canal, as I have explained, is a scheme that stands by itself. It is not affected by this project in tile slightest degree. The mere fact that the proposed railway will be constructed does not injure the prospects of the Georgian Bay canal any more than it affects the question of deepening our waterways and ports. We are simply building an all-rail highway across the continent, to connect with two lines of steamships on the two oceans.
Another criticism brought forward was by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Samuel Hughes). He says the grain cannot be carried over this railway. Well, the company are willing to undertake to carry it. They are willing to undertake to build the railway and operate it, and to give security that they will do that. It is a matter for the company; they have to accomplish this. But there is a peculiar fact in connection with the speeches made by some hon. gentlemen from Ontario. Why, the valiant member for Victoria declared that it was impossible to carry grain by rail to the lower provinces; but he showed that it was the most feasible thing in the world to carry it to the Pacific coast, and then put in on vessels and take it around Cape Horn and so on to Liverpool or to divert it to the United States, and take it by way of the Mississippi to Liverpool. It seems that these gentlemen are possessed -with the idea that if they can only get the grain out of that country in some way so that it will not go to the maritime provinces, their purpose is accomplished. I do not see why they feel that way about it.
The next criticiser oif this contract to whom I wish to refer is the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), and we will see what his criticism amounts to.
I wish to refer to the speech which he delivered on the 11th of August. He has referred to the section of the contract regarding running rights. He spoke as follows :

If it were possible to produce the most conclusive and striking evidence that some features of this contract were framed without consultation with and without the advice or the opinion of anybody who knows anything at all about railroading, these clauses in the contract and this clause in the preamble afford that evidence. A more absolutely unworkable, and, in the opinion of every railway man in the country, a more senseless suggestion it would be difficult to make. The idea of commencing a scheme involving all the millions of expenditure which it is proposed that this scheme shall involve, and then saying you will do it in order to establish a common railway highway, so that ' a ' company, ' b ' company, ' e 1 company and ' d ' company may travel thousands of miles over this railway. I have endeavoured to urge the view, but without the slightest success, that that was not railway usage or practice or possibility ; but it is here all the same.
In other words, he said that this idea of allowing running rights was impossible and Impracticable, and he went on to state that the dominant railway would impose on the servient railway and there would be all sorts of trouble. Some hon. gentlemen on this side suggested that there was a railway right in Ontario, over which two railway companies had joint running rights. Of course we do-, not presume to know all about railways, but the hon. the ex>Minis-ter of Railways and Canals evidently does not either, for he was not aware that there are two railways right here in Canada operating the same line jointly. I refer to the Wabash Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway. Some question was raised here as to how the railway is operated by these two companies, and I have taken the trouble to get a copy of the contract between them. I find that this is the agreement between the parties. They operate 229 miles in common. The train's of both companies run over that road. There is but one train despatcher, who is the joint officer of both companies. The station men and the permanent employees at the stations are joint officers of both companies. The trains of both companies are given the same privileges, and there is one despatcher for all the trains. Stallage is rented to the Wabash Company for its engines, and the Grand Trunk Railway sells coal to it at cost and charges if it wishes to buy, or it can buy its own coal. Here is a line 229 miles long, with two divisions, and it is operated by both these railway companies in harmony. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) undertook to say the other night that the Wabash was not interested in the local freights. He is entirely wrong. I have the contract under my hand, and under that contract, the local freight is carried on joint account, both companies getting the advantage. The working out of this arrangement is as simple as it can possibly be and has been going on for years without the slightest trouble. If you can operate 229 miles of railway in the way I have Indicated, why not a thousand ? What is the dif-309*
Terence ? The hon. the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) drew a most ridiculous picture here of a train starting from Moncton or Halifax for Winnipeg. He supposed that the same train hands went all the way through to Winnipeg. Whoever heard tell of a railway being operated in that way ? This railway will be operated by divisions, just the same as any other road.


Mr. COWAN.: The hon. gentleman, I understand, has the contract between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Wabash for running rights over the southern division of the Grand Trunk Railway between the Detroit and the Niagara rivers ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I have.


Mahlon K. Cowan: It was stated by the hon. member for Hamilton that the Wabash is not interested in the local freights, in which he was contradicted by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) at the time.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Here is the agreement :
The local freight traffic originating and ter-1 minating on the joint section, as described in subsection ' a ' of this clause, shall be done by Joint freight trains, the employees of which shall be joint employees, and all revenues shall be the joint revenues of both the parties thereto.
That is the arrangement. If hon. gentlemen would read the provisions of this contract, they would get rid of some of the notions put into their heads by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. I am ready to yield all deference to the ex-minister as regards his railway knowledge, but I cannot close my eyes to the fact that he has only been in the railway business some six or seven years ; and I am speaking mildly when I say that the school in which he has been educated can scarcely be called a modern one. Any one who is going to operate a great railway system at present, must not be a man who acquired his knowledge some fifty or sixty years ago. He must be up to modern methods and ideas. If he is, he will have no more trouble operating a railway line under a joint running arrangement than is experienced by the Grand Trunk Railway and Wabash company.
I now come to the other great critic, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier). I wish to deal, first, with some remarks he made regarding the 17th clause of this contract. This clause, which appears to have disturbed that hon. gentleman's peace of mind, reads as follows
No addition shall be made to the cost of construction or the capital of construction account in respect of customs duties in cases where there is direct importation of materials or supplies by the government.
From that section, the hon. gentleman argued that all the material which would enter into the construction of this eastern

division from Winnipeg to Moncton would come in free of duties, and he went on to say further that one result of this would be that there would not be a rail rolled in the Dominion for the next five years. I wonder how he worked that out. I would ask some lion, gentlemen opposite to tell me how it can be possible, when there is no duty on rails over 45 pounds in, weight, that the importation of such rails without duty will prevent the rolling of rails in this country ? Is there any one of them who can explain that ?


Mr. BENNETT.: That was not the argument of the hon. member for West Toronto. The First Minister said there was to be a great development in the iron and steel rail Industry, and the hon. member for West Toronto pointed out-and it is a pity the hon. gentleman could not grasp it, because he made it very plain-that there was no benefit to the Canadian industry at all under that contract.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I did not quite catch what the hon. gentleman said.


William Humphrey Bennett: I sa.d that it was not the argument of the hon. member for West Toronto that there was any customs duty on rails from the United States. But what he pointed out is this, that the right hon. the First Minister had declared, with a great flourish of trumpets, that the Canadian rail industry would be benefited owing to the fact that there was a clause inj the contract-as the First Minister said, but Who nobody believed-that they would have to purchase those rails in Canada. The. hon. member for West Toronto pointed out that In this he was entirely incorrect, because it was entirely optional on the part of the railway company whether they purchased in the United States or not.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I am much obliged to the hon. gentleman for his explanation, that was not the argument of the hon. member for West Toronto at all. That had; nothing to do with the contention he was making. What the. hon. member for West Toronto said was that because of this clause, which permits rails to come in free of duty, there would be no rails rolled In Canada.


William Humphrey Bennett: No.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I do not wonder the hon. gentleman does not believe that the hon. member for West Toronto could have said anything so ridiculous. But he did say it all the same.


Mr. INGRAM.: Will the hon. gentleman quote what the hon. member for West Toronto did say ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Well, I have not much time to hunt it up ; but if you wish, I will try and find it. This is what he said, in concluding his argument:


Mr WADE.: i \
Therefore, for fifty years all the supplies that come into Canada in connection with this road will come in free of duty.
And so on.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Read on.


Fletcher Bath Wade: (reading.)
If we take twenty-five years only of this lease, and say that the capital account will be^ increased three and a half times during that time, we shall have a capital account at the end of twenty-five years of $280,000,000. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) drew a glowing picture of what this great railway building was going to do for the merchants, manufacturers and people of this country. Let me tell you what it will do for the merchants and manufacturers. I have jotted down a few of the ordinary supplies that are necessary for the building of a railway, and for its continuous betterment. Apparently the section to be built by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is not to be exempt from the duties on the materials and supplies used in its construction, showing very clearly what the intention is, so far as the government road is concerned. I may say here that when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, as I recollect it, they were to bring in free of duty for the original construction of the road the steel rails and fastenings and certain supplies, but we made no steel rails in this country in those days, and that was a reasonable proposition. But under this contract, we bring in steel rails and everything to be used in the construction of the railway free ; yet, the hon. member for Cumberland says that if this contract be carried out the rolling mills of this country will be so full of orders that they will treble their capacity. Let me tell him that if this contract is carried out, there will not be a steel rail rolled in Canada for fifty years.
Now I could go on and read a lot more.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on, go on.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I hope the hon. gentleman will not get excited. I have something more to say to them on this point. I want to show them that when the hon. member for West Toronto spoke thus he did not know what he was talking about. In the first place, the Act which confirms this contract makes it necessary that this road should be built by a commission. The government is not building the road. It is to be built by a commission who cannot build it themselves, but will have to give contracts to parties to build the road, either as a whole or in sections. Now, is there any provision in clause 17 that when a party accepts a contract to build this road or any part of it he shall be exempt from the payment of 'duty ? There is not a word. My hon. friends have shown in more than one instance that they have not read the contract intelligently 'or in a way that they understand it. Now, this clause 17 has reference to the preceding clause; you must read it with the context, with the preceding clause, section 16 of the contract is as follows :
In case, after the completion of the said eastern division and the taking possession

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 said 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 be added to the capital of the construction account at the end of the year in which such expenditure takes place, and shall thereafter be considered as part of the cost of construction, upon which interest, by way of rental, is to be paid by the company ; provided that no such expenditure shall be entered upon without the consent and approval of the said company.
Now section 17 comes in :
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.
That is, if the government import materials and supplies for the purpose of making betterments upon that road, and do the work themselves instead of by contractors, then they shall not charge any duties upon these materials and supplies. That is what these sections mean and I am astonished to hear any hon. gentleman attempt to argue anything else.


Mr. SPROULE.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that this exemption does not apply to the original construction ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: No, it does not apply to the original construction. If the hon. gentleman reads the contract and the Act eonr-firming it he will see that it does not; the original construction is to be by tender and contract. Suppose the government calls for tenders for the building of the section from Quebec to Winnipeg and asks contractors : For how much per mile will you build and complete that road, and I suppose a tender is put in to build the whole section for $30,000 a mile, would the hon. gentlemen opposite say that the contractor could come to the government and say : I am not going to pay duties on materials and supplies imported for use in the construction of this road ? Surely they would not contend anything of that sort, and when this section 17 is read in connection with section 16, which speaks of the betterments to the road which have to be made from time to time, and provides that the cost of the betterments is to be added to the cost of construction for the purpose of charging a rental upon that amount surely they see that what I say is absolutely correct and that there can be no other interpretation of the section.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that this section, which speaks of ' capital of the construction account,' and ' cost of construction,'
does not apply to the original cost of construction ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Certainly I do, and if the hon. gentleman had listened to clause 16 he would have seen that my statement is correct. We have interpretation sections in this contract defining ' cost of construction,' and under section 16, which provides that the government may from time to time, if they see fit, with the consent of the company, go upon the road and expend money for betterments, then they are entitled to add their cost to the amount of the capital of the construction account and charge interest upon it, but in adding that amount it is provided by section 17 that they shall not make any charge on account of duties on articles brought in from abroad by the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I right in understanding that the hon. member contends that a contractor, when making an offer to build the road, would not take into account the reduction which he would be likely to receive by virtue of bringing in these articles free of duty 1


Fletcher Bath Wade: Most assuredly ; there could be no such reduction. How could you work it out 1 The commissioners are appointed and told that they must build the road, not build it themselves but build it by tender and contract. They ask for tenders for the construction of the whole or a part of that road and the contract calls for the construction of the road by the contractor whose tender is accepted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman say that in the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, where the same principle is involved, contractors who build the road are not allowed to bring in material free of duty ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I would answer the hon. gentleman in this way : With regard to the Intercolonial, the law permits the government to import materials from abroad without paying duty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So it does in this case.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Certainly, but, if a man takes a contract to do a certain work on the Intercolonial, the government does not allow him any rebate for duties.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it does.


Fletcher Bath Wade: We should speak about these things with knowledge. It is all very well for a gentleman in Toronto to look over a contract, which has passed the legal ordeals that this contract has, and to give his statement that a certain section of it means a certain thing. If the hon. gentleman would be a little more careful before making a statement of that kind, he would not put himself in such a position as he has done.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that section 17 does not

apply until the railway has passed into the hands of the lessees ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is exactly what I say. It does not apply until it has passed into the hands of the lessees, and until there has been a necessity for betterments which will be, I presume, a matter of at least fifteen years. And in this connection, be it remembered the government is not oblige ed to spend a dollar in betterments. And, under the terms of the contract the company has not only to maintain the road but to maintain it in accordance with the altered and advanced requirements of railway operation as time rolls on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? I do not wish to interrupt him.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Certainly ; that is all right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. gentleman, as a lawyer say that, in his opinion the courts, if appealed to, would not hold that under a proper construction of the contract, the estimate of the cost of construction should be reduced by the amount of the duty ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: As a lawyer-and I speak in the hearing of lawyers and my words will go on record to be read, if they desire, by the lawyers of the whole Dominion-I say that in arriving at the cost of construction of the eastern division under the provisions of this contract, the Grand Trunk Pacific will not be entitled to have any rebate given or deduction made on account of the articles which have been brought in and which have paid duty. I do not believe a lawyer can be found in the whole Dominion who would give an opinon to the contrary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the articles do not pay duty ? Suppose the contractor takes the position that they are brought in for the government ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: There is no authority under the Customs Act, under which that can be done. The only party that can import free of duty is the government itself. Every man who has a contract under the government takes that contract under the liability to pay duty on imported articles used in this contract. It would be just as reasonable to say that a man who has a contract to build a lighthouse on the shore and who has to import material, might say : I am building this for the government and need not pay duty. I wish to assure the hob. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) that I am in earnest in this matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) is on record, and the future will determine whether he is right or not.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Yes, the future will show. Now, I want to refer for a moment to the matter of subsidies. The hon. member for Mr. HEYD.
West Toronto (Mr. Osier) said there should be no more subsidies granted to railways. I think that is a very unkind remark coming from him, with his province traversed in every way by railroads which have been subsidized and aided by the government and the road of which he was a director subsidized to a greater extent than any other road in Canada ever was or ever will be. Why, he comes away with his coat pockets stuffed full of subsidies, with his waist-coat pockets stuffed full of subsidies, with his trouser pockets stuffed full of subsidies, with his boot-legs stuffed full of subsidies, and when he has got all that he can carry away, he turns around and says : Stop it; it is time to bring this thing to an end ; no more subsidies must be granted and no more railroads built.' That is not a position that the people of the other provinces will stand. We want railroads constructed whatever they are necessary for the development of the country, and we are not going to allow him to prevent us from giving proper assistance to these roads. Why what was his own "project ? He is assisting in formulating a scheme by which the government would be compelled to pay over to his company $24,000,000 or $25,000,000. to take off their hands an unprofitable portion of his road and also to expend $3,000,000 in betterments of the line. This lion, gentleman (Mr. Osier) said that we had no security under the contract that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company would operate the eastern division. And he told us that he had consulted one of the best lawyers in the province of Ontario. With a good deal of reluctance he gave us that gentleman's name as Mr. .Tames K. Smith. I have looked up Mr. Smith. I must confess that I was so ignorant that I had never heard of him as a celebrated lawyer, or as a lawyer at all, until his name was brought up in this House. I find that he is a very estimable gentleman living in Toronto, wlio has considerable means and deals in real estate loans and so on. But I am told that he has never been in active practice and is not in active practice to-day, except in foreclosing mortgages and other things of that kind pertaining to his personal business.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Would the hpn. gentleman (Mr. Wade) permit me to tell him that Mr. Smith is the editor of the Ontario Law Reports.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I would like to know how far that goes towards proving that he is an eminent lawyer.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Quite right. Law editors do not practise very much.


Mr.   AALVDE@: I do not think, that, if I wanted to employ a lawyer to give me an opinion on a railway contract, I would go to a Law Reports editor, but to an active practitioner who is dealing with the matters to be considered. But what does this gentle-

man tell us ? He tells us in effect, that the only way by which the government can enforce the operation of the eastern division by this company is by selling out the five million dollars worth of rolling stock. Well,
I could not imagine that a lawyer would have made that statement until I heard his letter read, and until I had a copy placed in my hand. I have the letter, with the statement referred to over Mr. Smith's own signature. Now, I give my opinion against that of this gentleman, that if the Grand Trunk Pacific fails to operate that eastern division in strict accordance with the terms of the contract and lease, which is to be drawn, the government will be in a position to do one of three things : They can seize, under their mortgage, the five million dollars worth of rolling stock and sell it; or, they can bring action against the company for the amount of loan and damages, and the measure of damages would be the cost of operation of the road by the government; or, they can, under the terms of an Act which lias gone through this parliament this session, and which the learned gentleman was evidently unaware of, go to the Exchequer Court as an ordinary creditor and asked for a decree to have the whole system of the Grand Trunk Pacific put in the market and sold. This gentleman does not seem to keep posted on what is going on.


George Taylor: Will it sell for the amount of the bonds ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I will talk about selling for the amount of the bonds, in a minute. This new law to which I refer says :
The Exchequer Court of Canada shall have jurisdiction, as regards any railway not wholly within one province, or as regards any section ot a railway not wholly within one province, or as regards any railway otherwise subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada,-
(a.l At the instance of the Minister of Railways and Canals, or of any creditor of any person or company owning or operating such railway or section, to order or decree in such manner as it may prescribe, the sale of such railway or section of railway, and of all the rolling stock, equipment and other accessories thereof, whenever such company has become insolvent, or has for more than ten days failed to efficiently continue the working or operating of such railway or section or any part thereof, or has become unable so to do.
First it goes on to provide for order of sale. Then, there is the provision to show when the company shall be considered insolvent. It is considered insolvent in all cases which constitute insolvency under sections 5 and 6 of the Winding Up Act. I have not the exact wording as it left the committee of this House and cannot state just how it was finally worded. But one thing is certain, that if it suffers judgment to go against it and execution to remain in the hands of the sheriff for a period of thirty or sixty days (I think) that is an act of insolvency, and, that act of
insolvency having been performed, the government can, as a creditor, go to the Exchequer Court and ask for an order to sell the whole railway. If that is done what is the result ? In the first place the Grand Trunk Pacific has to lose the $20,000,000 which it has put in for rolling stock. The result is that the Grand Trunk Railway is going to lose 25 per cent which they guarantee towards the construction of the prairie and mountain sections. That is all gone. The government can step in and buy that road and they would have the road, plus the $20,000,000 of rolling stock, for the cost of the road less the rolling stock. Perhaps it may be said that the Grand Trunk Railway would bid the price of the road up so as to cover the cost of the bonds that they have guaranteed. Granting that they did that, and they had to pay the bonds, then the government would pay no more and no less than what the road actually cost and they would have $20,000,000 in rolling stock for nothing. I would ask the hon. gentleman what further security could we have than that 1 Is not that ample security and does this justify him in making the statement he has made ? These are about all the criticisms of this contract that I have seen made and which I deem it necessary to reply to.
I must apologize. Mr. Speaker, for detaining the House so long, but this subject is a vast one and one that cannot be considered in a moment. There has been a great deal of time taken up in the discussion of this measure, but I think it is' time well spent. It is cerainly time well spent in the interest of the government, because every day that this matter is under discussion it is being demonstrated with more certainty that this is a marvellously good contract in the interest of the Dominion of Canada. While it isi a good contract in the interest of the Dominion of Canada, I believe it will be a good contract in the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. It would not be a good contract if they were going to run a small, picayune business, but if they are going to inaugurate the system they promise us, they will then have a contract which will be profitable and beneficial to them. One of the effects of this scheme is that the capital that is going into it is British capital, capital that is content with a moderate earning and that is a matter of very great importance. I heard one of the best railway men in Canada make the observation the other day, and mark you lie is opposed to this scheme for personal reasons. that it was useless to talk in this day about operating a transcontinental railway unless you have ocean connections. What would the Canadian Pacific Railway do to-day if it had not its connections on the Pacific coast and if there is going to be no profit in the hauling of grain, if there is going to be no benefit derived by the Canadian Pacific Railway in

the running of their road out into the Northwest Territories, I would ask hon. gentlemen why did the Canadian Pacific Railway within the last two months acquire a line of steamships upon the Atlantic? They only acquired that line because they could not operate that road without it. They must have their line of steamships there just the same as they have their line of steamships on the Pacific Ocean. We cannot tell, we can only imagine the increase of the trade that is going to take place on the Pacific coast, and I believe that this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is destined to have a brilliant future.
At all events, Mr. Speaker, I have faith in this Canada of ours. We are all working together with a common purpose, we are feeling in these days the pulsations of nationhood, we are no longer satisfied to occupy a lesser and meaner position. We have in this country determined to work together to develop our great resources which God has blessed us with, and I say it is the duty of every Canadian to put aside for the moment his party politics and to come forward and assist in carrying through this great work. Some hon. gentlemen have stated that this is the crowning act in the life of the right hon. leader of the government. I cannot agree with that. It is a crowning act, no doubt about that, it is a great accomplishment on his part, but to my mind the crowning act in his life, as I believe history will show, was when he broke down racial and religious barriers; when he united Canadians in the province of Quebec, in the province of Ontario, and in the provinces down by the sea and the west, in a common brotherhood ; and when he taught them by his example to go forward and develop this country and give it the place in the galaxy of nations forming the British empire that God and nature intended it should occupy.


William Rees Brock: Mr. Speaker, rather an unfortunate circumstance to myself in rising to reply to the speech that we have listened to for the last three hours or more is the very important fact that to reply to the lengthy speeches that we have had on both sides of the House during the last ten days would require some one with a great deal more physical strength and ability than I possess. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Wade) has given us an exhibition of his desire to have good feeling prevailing from one end of this Dominion to the other. The first hour of his speech, and I leave it to the House to decide as to whether I am correct, was taken up in a deliberate attempt to create those very feelings which he says the right hon. the Prime Minister has attempted to allay. To work up the enthusiasm of the maritime provinces he tells us that whenever the maritime provinces made a demand for anything it was resisted by the provinces to the west, that the residents
of the maritime provinces have never had anything but resistance, and that the rest of the Dominion has always opposed them. I contend that such is not the case. [DOT] I contend that there is no feeling throughout the rest of Canada as against the maritime provinces. I have lived as long in this country as the hon. gentleman has. I have met ns many residents of Canada as he has met, I have lived among the citizens of the province of Ontario, I have gone in and out amongst them, I have been doing active business amongst them during the last forty years, and I can assure this House and this country that the statement made by the hon. member for Annapolis is absolutely incorrect. He speaks of the crowning act of our Premier's life. Nobody will be more delighted, nobody will be more pleased than I if the right hon. Premier would crown the various good acts of his life by doing now what he promised to do a few weeks ago; that is, that he would place this whole matter in the hands of a transportation commission, which would take into consideration the wants of this country in the matter of transportation by water and by land. It was promised that they would take the whole matter into consideration, that they would receive expert evidence, that they would report the result of their investigations, that the report would bie laid before the House and that we would then act upon it. I am told the right hon. the Prime Minister has made the appointments to this commission. I merely see it in the newspapers. We asked across the floor of the House yesterday as to whether these appointments had been made, but the acting leader of the House at the time stated that he would rather leave the matter to the right hon. Prime Minister.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) refer to the transportation question ?


William Rees Brock: Yes.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am sorry that I was not in the House this morning when the routine business was discharged; otherwise I would have informed the House that we have appointed a commission, to be composed of Mr. John Bertram of Toronto, Mr. Reford of Montreal, and Mr. Fry of Quebec.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is locking the stable after the horse is stolen.


William Rees Brock: We are not, from this side of the House, going to offer 'one objection to the composition of the commisison. It is my pleasure to know two of the gentlemen very well. I have every confidence in them, and if the Prime Minister will now place this great matter of transportation in the hands of that commission, and let them receive evidence and report upon it, I think I can say that they will get every assistance from this side of the House, and

the Prime Minister will get every assistance from us in having the report of that commission carried out. I do not think that is an unfair proposition. These gentlemen were appointed by the government and if the matter is now referred to them they will take evidence and report upon it, and this side of the House will join with hon. gentlemen opposite in carrying out the report they make.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade); who has held the attention of the House for the last three hours, endeavoured during the first hour of his speech to make it as unpleasant as he possibly could for us on this side of the House. After trying to create difficulties between the two provinces, he then attacked individuals ; he attributed motives-motives that if true would be most unworthy. He made the statement that when the leader of the opposition announced this scheme of his through-connections for a transcontinental road, Mr. Osier, a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway had used his influence with the leader of the opposition to get him to relieve the Canadian Pacific Railway of an unprofitable part of their system. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) had ,no right to say anything of the kind. Mr. Osier is known and favourably known from one end of this Dominion to the other. No greater insult could be offered to the friends of Mr. Osier who know him well-and I believe gentlemen on the other side of the House know Mr. Osier well-than to say that he ever used his influence in any manner whatsoever for such a purpose. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) had a good case, why was it necessary for him to impute such motives to gentlemen who stand high, not only in this House, but throughout Canada. Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) paid a little attention to myself. It appears that when a certain statement was made from the other side of the House, I referred to it as a humbug. Well, I am going to stand by that; I don't make statements unadvisedly.


Mr. CLARKE.: It is parliamentary too.


William Rees Brock: I suppose it is. When I used the expression the Finance Minister was reading a survey of the exploration of northern Ontario which he called a report. Now, we are discussing a great transcontinental railroad to be built from Moncton to the Pacific coast, a' most important undertaking, and the Finance Minister after reading from the introduction of this report, went on to speak of this country as having been explored and having been examined, and he argued that such a road as that described by the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) could be built through this country at a reasonable price ; I think he said $25,000 or $30,000 a mile. I said that was humbug. Those who went into that part of northern Ontario did not
do so to survey for a railroad from east to west, and they have made no report about such a project at all. In fact, if we had such a report I feel confident that the.government would change the location of their railway and adopt the plan of the leader of the opposition. The hon. member for Annapolis denounced me in strong terms, but with these remarks I leave him in the hands of the House.
There has been some little talk about loyalty and some little talk about disloyalty. Well, people can be disloyal without being personally disloyal. They can be disloyal to the best interests of Canada without being personally disloyal. We have gone through strange changes in this country. I am old enough to have listened to some magnificent speeches from Liberal leaders favouring unrestricted reciprocity. But now, their cry is : We must have this road built right away, there is no time to be lost or the Americans will jump upon us and do away with the bonding privilege. But when the right hon. the Prime Minister advocated unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, what was he doing ? He offered to pour the whole wealth of this country of ours over the border ; he offered that the Americans should pour into this country their manufactured goods to the utter ruin of every manufacturer in Canada. That was the meaning of unrestricted reciprocity, and he advocated it with his eyes open. Don't let him talk any more about disloyalty. There never was a more disloyal scheme sprung on this country, but fortunately the people of Quia da knew their own interests too well to endorse it.
The member for Annapolis said amongst other things, that this project of the government was absolutely necessary to maintain this country in its present condition ; that we were two disjointed sections, separated by a hiatus of 1,000 miles. Well, Sir. the day has gone by when Lake Huron and Lake Superior can be called separating barriers. I say on the contrary that they join ns together. We have the best kind of communication with that country every day over these great inland waters, and when members on the other side say that we are separated by these waters they are making a big mistake. You will excuse me, Sir, if I give my views in-a somewhat disjointed way, because I have not had that legal training that would place me in a positiou to answer such an eminent legal light as the member for Annapolis. The hon. gentleman told us that the possibility was that the people of our Canadian west might join their fortunes with the people to the south of us. Well, I don't believe that there was ever any possibility of that. Better British subjects" than those in the North-west do not exist anywhere in Canada ; they are not only thoroughly loyal to Canada, but what is more, they are thoroughly loyal to their own interests. They know

that the whole Dominion is just as much bound up in their prosperity as they are themselves. They will have no cause to complain of our conduct towards them, and there is no object in gentlemen on the other side trying to raise issues of that kind to bolster up a bad case. X think I heard some call this proposition of the government an hysterical scheme, which was rushed into without proper consideration. But, Sir, when I heard the contract read, I could see that there was a guiding hand to it, and I could,1 understand the wisdom of Mr. Hays refusing either to build the railway proposed by the government, or to pay. any rent for it, for seven years at any race. He did consent, and I do not think it required much pressure to make him consent, to build a road from Winnipeg west, and to accept from the government a guarantee of $13,000 per mile. I do not think he refused to do that. But somebody has said that the days for bonuses to railways have gone by. They have. The days for granting bonuses for railways through the wealthy and settled parts of these provinces have gone by. If you are going to grant any assistance, it should be to open up new country. Now, let us see what was the first project sprung upon this country

! think it was thr ugli the 1 Globe ' newspaper- by the Grand Trunk Company ; the hon. Finance Minister rose upon his toes and said to the old Grand Trunk. Bet us see what the old Grand Trunk were goiug to do for the country. They were going to connect their system via North Bay with the great west, opening up a country north of Bake Winnipeg, and thence to the Pacific. The hon. Minister of the Interior was hunting about for authorities to show who were advocating the Grand Trunk Pacific, and he read several interviews, one by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), and another by myself. Mr. Clarke can take care of himself. The hon. Minister of the Interior quoted me as saying that I was delighted that the old Grand Trunk were going to continue their system through the west, north of Bake Winnipeg and on to the coast. He quoted my approval of that scheme as an approval of the present scheme of the government. True he had to take it back ; but it showed his animus ; it showrnd what he wanted to do. I may again have to quote the hon. Minister of the Interior, and I am very sorry he is not here.
Now, this matter has been before this House and before the country for a great many days. We have now two schemes before the House and the country. We have that of the hon. leader of the opposition, a scheme which somebody has said he developed in eighteen days. Well, I consider that he has done good work in that time. He has merely outlined a scheme, and that scheme will commend itself to a man of business, who honestly sits down and studies


William Rees Brock: the situation, taking into consideration the conditions and the wants of Canada. One of the great needs of the day is to place ourselves in the position to bring the grain of the west as far east as we can, through Canadian wmterways and over Canadian railways to Canadian ports. That is the project placed before the country by this side of the House; and, mark you, if the country spends its money upon that project, the country is going to own it. We are not going to wait for eight years before we get any return. We have not got to pay the expenses of these roads for seven or eight years; we have not to lie out of our interest for that time. From the very day the arrangement is made, and these railways are taken over, they will pay their way. There is no doubt about that. With regard to the much talked of line between North Bay and Fort William, over which one railway is running at present, it is said that that piece of road cost $60,000 a mile. The present government propose-may I say to parallel it ?-to build a railway some fifty or one hundred miles north of it, which also they will find will cost them $60,000 a mile. Then there will be two railways there which will have cost $60,000 a mile each. The owners of the Canadian Northern system want to bring that railway down to the eastern part of Canada. If they do, they will have to build another railroad at a cost of $60,000 a mile; and the Grand Trunk Pacific, or the old Grand Trunk, wanting to get ihto that country, would also have to build a railway at the same cost. So you would have four railroads running through that country, all of them costing about the same amount of money. The proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition is to combine these four railways, giving them all an equal right to run over that road, and thus to diminish to each the expense of haulage. Do you mean to tell me that is impossible V Railroad corporations are business corporations. When the Canadian Pacific Railway Company undertook to build a railway from Toronto to Hamilton, how were they met ? They were met by the Grand Trunk Company, who said : Cannot we make an arrangement and save you something and save ourselves something ? And the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Railway Companies, by a friendly arrangement, both used the tracks of the Grand Trunk from Toronto to Hamilton without any difficulty. And yet, it is said that the Canadian Pacific cannot make a satisfactory arrangement to allow these other railways to run over their line. I believe the Canadian Pacific Railway Company might not be able to do so. The plan of this country is not to let the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have all the say, as the government are allowing the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to'liave all the say. The plan of this country is, either by expropriation or by fair terms agreed upon,

to make the proposed arrangement. It is just as much in the interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to have the expenses of that line divided up among the other railways as it is for the other railways to have running powers over it; and it is all in the interest of Canada that all these railways shall be controlled by the government Of Canada.
There is a matter in connection with the country from Quebec to Winnipeg which 1 think is worthy of examining for a little while. We have heard some reports upon it quoted. I may say that some five years ago I had the honour of being appointed by the mayor and corporation of the city of Toronto as one of a commission to have an investigation made of the capabilities of that very country. Mr. Lyman Melvin Jones, the present senator, was another, along with Mr. Herbert Mason, Mr. Robert Davies and Mr. George Gooderham. We came to this House and got a charter in our own names on behalf of the city of Toronto. We sent an exploring party of surveyors up to investigate that country. Have you heard of a road being built since by the wealthy city of Toronto V Some of our friends speak of Toronto as 'Hogtown'; if it were going to be such an advantage to us to open up that country, if there was such a magnificent clay belt there, and if it was so rich in minerals and timber, why did not the city of Toronto have a railway built into it ? I believe the time will come when it will be built for a certain distance; that is, a colonization road. That is the only way you can colonize that country-you have to aim at the fertile spots. It is no use to build a railway 1,800 miles long to wabble about through that country to find its fertile spots. You cannot even locate your stations in the morasses up there. I know the kind of treatment given to any one who wants to tell the simple truth about that country. One of the worst services you can render it is to deceive the people about it. Many people who went to northern Ontario to settle have returned. I do not say they have returned from the best parts of it. They may have been disappointed, and got bad land; but they came back telling sad stories about the winter they passed in northern Ontario. There is, I believe, very good land westward from Lake St. John; but this projected road does not go within 100 or 150 miles of that land. Remember that this is north of the height of land. This is not on the south side where there is any timber, but you have to go north of the height of land; and I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) speak of its being in the Artie region himself this morning. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), understands all about timber and timber limits. He knows how closely people investigate timber limits. Would the hon. gentleman put $100,000 into a timber limit in that country on information which the
right hon. gentleman the First Minister deemed sufficient to warrant the building of this 1,800 mile railway V Would he, supposing there were any timber limits up there send up $100,000 to buy a timber limit, without any investigation ? Would he change his mind in going from one room to the other with regard to timber limits as he did with regard to this scheme when he suddenly became converted from an opponent into a strong supporter of it V


Mr. CHARLTON.: I shall be happy to answer the hon. gentleman. He asks if I would be willing to put $100,000 into a timber limit in the country though which this road is to pass without examination. I answer no. But I am satisfied, with the information I have, that this road will open up a great many timber limits worth more than $100,000 ; and as soon as that road is projected and well advanced in construction I shall go in there and buy timber lands.


William Rees Brock: The hon. gentleman is perfectly willing that the country should spend $50,000,000, $60,000,000 or $70,000,000 on information on which he would not buy a timber limit. There is no doubt about that. The hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Mackie) also endorsed this scheme. He has travelled through that country, he has been in a great many parts of it, but not as a railway builder, not with the view of investigating whether we could get there these magnificent grades, without which the hon. member for North Norfolk told us the road would not be any good. Twenty-one feet to the mile or four-tenths of one per cent, I think, was his idea of the grade. Unless they could get that grade, unless it was a first-class road, unless it could carry 2,000 tons to the train, it would be no good. On my responsibility as a member of parliament, and! (as one who has (Obtained everything he has in this world in this Dominion and in this province, I say that a worse scheme has never been devised. It has been called a mad scheme. I have no right to impute improper motives, and have no intention of doing so, but I will say this, that if it be a good scheme, I am strongly in favour of government ownership. The government money is going in to build that road from Moncton to Winnipeg. The government are building that road through a country concerning whioh we have very little information. When the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) says that a grade can be got in that country such as the hon. member for North Norfolk makes compulsory. he says that a grade can be found which no engineer has ever yet discovered there. The engineers may find such a grade; but if they do, as my hon. friend from Pic-tou (Mr. Boll) has said, they will, in order to go a distance of three miles, have to cover twenty-two miles. But X have not got through with that North-west country yet.

X have here the report of a gentleman given as to the quality of that country. He says it is 400 miles in extent. That is a pretty good length to build a railway through. Then he proceeds to say :
Theu we have sections 10, 11 and 12 at the other end of the line, which do not constitute a country which we can call an agricultural country. The last 300 miles, or probably 400 miles, of the line is in a country which it cannot be successfully asserted is likely to be a country which will amount to very much as an agricultural country. There are occasional patches of .good land along the water courses, but they are not large in extent.
This is not the language of an opponent of the government. It is not the opinion of a man who is looked upon as unfriendly to tlie government. It is a statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, (Hon. Mr. Sifton). I do not think that the right hon. the Prime Minister can possibly have looked into this matter as he should have done before launching it on the public.
The government started out this year early with another proposition which the Prime Minister did not propose off his own bat, but after deliberation. They started out with a scheme to solve the great transportation problem by land and water. They were going to appoint a commission of experts who would take evidence. There was no talk then of building this road at once. There was no talk about the abrogation of the bonding privilege ; they were going to take time to deliberate and report. In what position is that commission ? In what position is the government at present ? They surely have not appointed men in whom they have no confidence. Should we not take it for granted that the men they have appointed are men in whom they have every confidence ? I know two of them, and will bank upon them myself. I believe that they will do what is right and honest. I would like to have those three men investigate this scheme from Moncton to Winnipeg and submit a report to this House, and I know that they will not bring in a favourable report unless the scheme is a good one. We should have their investigation and report before committing ourselves to this project. Let the government hasten slowly, and have confidence in its own commission. The opposition do not ask to be represented on that commission. The right hon. gentleman must show his confidence in his own commissioners, or how can he expect the country to have any confidence In them or him ? Let this project go before that commission, let the commissioners take evidence and report, and let the right hon. gentleman, if necessary, call an extra session to receive and consider that report Let the government place plenty of money at their disposal for surveys, and let these commissioners find out whether we can build such a road through this country as the hon. member for North Norfolk says we Mr. BROCK.
must, or if not wipe the thing out altogether.


John Charlton: Suppose we find out in the meantime, within the next month perhaps, that we can get just such a line as we want, with four-tenths of one per cent grade ?


William Rees Brock: This scheme, we are told, is very intelligible ; and to show how intelligible it is, the government have placed a map on the Table. This map was brought down here to show that the scheme is feasible and practicable, but I defy anybody to make anything out of that map. All the lines run north and south. There are none running east and west to show that the country has been examined from a railway point of view. The great difficulty about the whole thing, I am afraid, is that our respected Premier has not given it the attention he should have. Internal trouble in the cabinet and quarrels in the Council Chamber have probably urged him forward.
I do not mean to say he did it to get rid, of any of his ministers, but that he was urged into hasty and ill-considered action by the troubles he found rising about him. And I believe he will live to seriously regret what he has done. We have had a good deal of detraction by some hon. gentlemen opposite of very important members of this House who sit on their own side, including efforts to impute motives to these gentlemen. Members of this House who., for years have applauded the ex-Minister of Railways, now get up and find fault with the members on this side because, after being silent all these years we did applaud that hon. gentleman. We did applaud him. and this country is applauding him for the position he took. But it comes with very bad grace from those whom, in many cases he has almost made, to speak of him as they have done. I cannot forbear to refer to one gentleman particularly. He came into this House with a great flourish and was spoken of as an acquisition to our membership. His scholarly attainments were praised in advance and we were led to hope great things of him. I refer to the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell). This hon. gentleman sought to belittle the ex-Minister of Railways. The hon. gentleman ought to know that he does his own side no good by attempting to belittle one who has acted with them all these years. Suppose that a merchant had a man in his employment, who, after twenty years of service decided to make a change, would that merchant raise himself in the estimation of others by seeking to belittle the man who had been with him so long ? After having approved him for twenty years, would he win approval by speaking of him as unfit to tie his shoes ? Nothing of this kind was required from the hon. member for Hants. We will not impute motives, but we will watch and see what the result will be.

I wish to draw attention to one matter in connection with this new commission. It is fair to do that, so that it may be known where we are. One member of this commission is strongly committed to the scheme of the Prime Minister now before the House. I do not know whether he would have been appointed if he had opposed it. If the commission will investigate and promise to report on the schemes on their merits notwithstanding all that has been said, we on this side are perfectly prepared to place ourselves and the interests of the country in the hands of this commission. I think that under the circumstances it will be an evident sign of weakness, or obstinacy, which is very often weakness, if this offer is refused. But if it is not accepted I think the duty of the Prime Minister, as soon as he can get through with the business of this House is to give us an appeal to the country. We are prepared for it. We are prepared to go before the country and let the people choose between the schemes placed before them. X know what the result will be. Efforts are made to show that public opinion has expressed approval of. the government's scheme. The Minister of the Interior showed that certain resolutions had been passed by boards of trade, or rather by councils of boards of trade. I have been a member of the council of a board of trade for twenty or thirty years, and I know that most extraordinary things have got through that council. All you have to do is to have a friend of two advised to attend the meeting, and it is wonderful what you can get through. Of course, you must take good care to bring the matter up in the absence of those who are opposed to it. Somebody once said that he could get petitions signed to have the signers' grandmothers hanged. And so you can arrange to have almost anything approved by councils of boards of trade. Those who passed this resolution probably did not have these two schemes before them. And, like some other people, in the innocence of their hearts, no doubt, they placed some dependence on the statement of the Prime Minister that he had mountains of information about the country through which this road is to run. They supposed, not that he had read a few old reports, but that he had something reasonable in the way of definite information to show we could build a road through that country. It is of mo use to tell us that carrots and cabbages grow at a certain point in that northern country or that oats will ripen in some portions of it. The proposition is to build a railway, and to build a railway such as was described by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who spoke with authority ns to the character of the road required. You need to tell us something more than that cabbages can be grown in that country before you can convince the people of Canada that they ought to build that road.
I must draw these disjointed remarks to a close. I wish they could have been stronger;
I wish they could have been strong enough to impress the minds of lion, gentlemen on the other side. I have only to do the best I can, but 1 think I may fairly say that in making any statements, I have not made them for political effect, or to benefit any political party or any province or section. There has been a little too much of that kind of thing in this debate from the very first. I was in the committee room when this road from Quebec to Moncton was forced on Mr. Hays and upon theli committee. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) made a most eloquent appeal and let the government know pretty plainly that this road must be made a part of the scheme. So it was that we got to Moncton. In the first jilace, Mr. Hays did not want even to build the line from North Bay to Quebec. The fact that Mr. Hays accepted these propositions one after another naturally arouses suspicion that he was looking to work something in by which he would be made pretty safe. And I think that when the contract comes to be carefully analyzed in this House it will be shown where Mr. Hays will be able to slip out and let the government in. Of course, I won't set up my opinion against those of the clever lawyers who have spoken. But opinions have been asked, and I believe, given, and by pretty clever lawyers too, pointing out just iiow this can be done. I do not wish you to think, Mr. Speaker, that I am by any means attempting to explain the scheme of the leader of the opposition. That hon. gentleman and other members who are better aware than I am how matters can be arranged in connection with the legal difficulties that may arise, will lay the matter fully before you and before this House. But it seems to me a feasible scheme. As I said, the roads are now in operation, and directly the government takes them over they become a paying proposition. We are not to keep running these roads for seven years and lie out of our money during that time before we get any return. Therefore, deliberately and with the best knowledge I have, I give my preference to the scheme which has been presented by this side of the House rather than to this most extraordinary proposal which is being pressed upon this House by the government.


Mr. A. MALOUIN (Quebec Centre).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate, I do not propose to speak at any length. I only wish to offer a few suggestions and to give my reasons for supporting the railway policy submitted by the government. This scheme for the building of a transcontinental railway, which is now before the House, has, I think, been considered with care and is worthy of our approval. In the first place, it has, from its. inception, met with general commenda-

tion throughout the country. We all remember that in October and November last, when the Grand Trunk Pacific made public its intention of forming itself into a company for the building of a railway to the coast, the whole press of the country, in giving the news, stated that the undertaking was one of absolute necessity and which would be of the greatest service to Canada. However, two companies were in existence at the time requesting help from the government for the carrying out of such an undertaking. When the scheme for the building of a transcontinental railway was brought forward, all admitted that the plan was a good one and should be carried out. It was recognized by all that before long we should have another railway across the continent.
Subsequently, came the opening of this session ; and the promoters of the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company came before parliament and asked for a charter authorizing them to carry out the undertaking. So, the matter was brought up before the House, and later on before the Railway Committee.
When the scheme was first made known to the public, the starting point was to be North Bay, that is it was to run from North Bay westward to the coast. Then, it was decided to alter the location for the purpose of .meeting the wishes of the people of the maritime provinces and of Quebec. In submitting the matter to the Railway Committee, tiie promoter of the Bill (Mr. McCarthy) thought proper to move an amendment providing that the proposed road should be extended in direct line to Quebec, and from Quebec to the maritime provinces. That amendment was carried. In accordance with that amendment, the road was to be built wholly on Canadian soil, thereby benefiting all the provinces of Canada. At the time, the scheme was received with pleasure, not only by the Liberal members, but by the Conservatives as well. We are all aware of the discussion which took place on that Bill before the committee, and which lasted for three long weeks. I remember that those who exerted themselves tiie most to secure the passing of the Bill, which was finally agreed to. and is now known as a Transcontinental Railway Bill, were members of tiie opposition, and among others, tiie lion, member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain). who was very tenacious on behalf of the scheme. Before the committee, tiie lion, member for Montmorency, thinking that tiie motion made by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) had solely for its object to deceive those wlio were in favour of the extension of tiie road eastward, urged that the various sections of tiie railway should be constructed simil-taneousl.v.
The hon. member for Annapolis, as we all remember, introduced a motion which has since been designated as the Wade motion.


Arthur Cyrille Albert Malouin: That lion, member, in common with the other representatives of the maritime provinces, believed, at the time, that the intention was to frustrate their expectations, and accordingly this famous motion was drafted. As I have just stated, the hon. member for North Simcoe had moved an amendment providing that the said transcontinental railway should start from Winnipeg and run by way of Quebec and Moncton. With a view to ensuring the construction of that part of the road, Mr. Wade moved :
Provided, however, that the work of construction on the Quebec section and east of Quebec be commenced at or near Quebec, and carried on simultaneously east and west, and that the said sections be operated at the same time, and no such section shall be operated without the other.
So that the desire of the hon. member for Annapolis was that the Quebec section and the Moncton section Should be build simultaneously.
In the course of the debate, the hon. Minister of Finance suggested that It was not customary to lay down such terms in granting charters to private companies. He added : Should the government decide to grant some help or other towards building the road, they would be careful to lay down conditions which would ensure its construction. The hon. member for Annapolis complied with the request of the Minister of Finance and agreed to withdraw his motion ; but the hon. member for Montmorency, who was posing as the champion of the interests of Quebec, took exception to tbe withdrawal of the motion and a 'vote was taken. The member for Montmorency, and the member for Laval and Nicolet voted in support of the Wade motion. By that vote they have given their assent to the principle that the railway* should be built, not only to Quebec, but as far as Moncton. As for us, representatives of the province 6f Quebec, we voted against the motion on the ground that we did not wish to lay a heavy burden upon tiie company before it had received any help from tiie government. We said : When the government will have made up their minds to help the company, it will be time then to exact terms ; but until then the company should not be interfered with. The hon. members for Montmorency, Laval and Nicolet said :	On the contrary, the company
should be bound at once. These gentlemen laid down tbe principle that the line should he built immediately and an exceedingly heavy burden put on the shoulders of the company, a burden to which it is not customary to subject them. But the Conservative papers of the province of Quebec did ail in their poiwer to make it clear that tiie undertaking in question was of vital importance for the whole province : and at the same time, they taunted the members

from the district of Quebec for not having1 voted in support of the Wade motion. *
In the course of this debate, the views expressed by newspapers in Ontario and various other provinces have been quoted to show what public sentiment was in the various localities. Let me quote, now, front the Quebec ' Evenement ' to show what was the sentiment of the press there at the time. But, before I give these extracts, let me state that the ' Evenement ' is the chief organ of the Conservative party in Quebec. It holds the same position in the district *of Quebec as the ' Mail ' and ' Empire ' in *Ontario. It is the property of Senator Landry and of Mr. L. P. Pelletier, who was recently selected as organizer of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. Let us see what views that paper expressed 'in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill ; *for it should not be forgotten that the ^scheme submitted to the Railway Committee is identical to that brought before this (House by the government and which is now .,under discussion. Neither should it be forgotten that it was distinctly understood .with all the members that the government (Was to grant help to the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. Now, Sir, what happened ? ;The Wade motion was negatived by the .(committee. Immediately the ' Evenement.' -on June 6, published the following article intituled : ' Where are our representatives?'
We urgently draw the attention of our readers to the report of yesterday's meeting of the Railway Committee.
Where are our representatives ?
Once more, where are they ?
Mr. Casgrain fought valiantly, but who supported him ? No other name is mentioned from [DOT]Quebec.
It is obvious that the Grand Trunk Pacific intends to deceive us.
Why should they reject amendments intended to protect Canadian ports, if they really wish to build a Rational line ?
Sir Wilfred Laurier said the other day that great corporations easily evade legislative [DOT]enactments.
That is a further reason for making these stronger, and requiring additional security.
Quebec will he left aside once more, if the [DOT] company is not bound to carry on the work simultaneously eastward and westward from the city.
That is the object of the Wade amendment, and we are thankful to Mr. Casgrain for enere getically upholding our claims. The member for Montmorency stated that should the committee reject that amendment, he would submit it once more to the House.
We notice with pleasure the courageous stand taken by the representatives of the maritime provinces, wTho, heedless of party allegiance, insist on their rights being recognized. Their interest is the same as ours. What force would they not have altogether if the members from the Quebec district joined them. We have twenty representatives, and Mr. Casgrain is the -only one to fight our battle.
Those are the words of the ' Evenement,' the chief organ of the Conservative party in the district of Quebec. As regards ourselves,
we deemed it inopportune to subject the company to unusually burdensome conditions before the government had decided what measure of help they would extend. But, Sir, is it not obvious that hon. members who, like the member for Montmorency, supported the Wade motion, concurred at the same time, and without reservation, in the principle which lies at the very foundation of the scheme submitted to this House ? In the same issue of that paper, its Ottawa correspondent, Who was no other than the member for Montmorency 'himself, or Senator Landry, wrote as follows :
Since the last meeting of the committee, the representatives of 'the Grand Trunk have met a certain number of members from the maritime provinces, and agreed to the line being built from Quebec to Moncton, and from that point connect with St. John and Halifax, by way of the Intercolonial.
But that has not given satisfaction to the other members from the east, and Mr. Wade has moved an amendment, with a view to bind the company to build its line from Quebec to Moncton and from Quebec to Manitoba simultaneously.
Mr. Casgrain has gone over the history of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and shown that the company intends to extend its line outside of Canada, and have its winter port at Portland. It was only after a great deal of agitation in Quebec that the location was changed from North Bay to Lake Nepigon and thence to Quebec. That last link passed through an impracticable country, and he did not believe the company were in earnest, even if they should start building the section east from Quebec. He has in hand information which goes to show that the people in the east will be deceived. The Dominion government should not vote one dollar before the company gives indisputable pledges of its good faith. Mr. Casgrain adds that should the committee reject Mr. Wade's amendment, he will introduce a motion on similar lines in the House, so as to have a vote on the question.
That is What the member for Montmorency or Senator Landry wrote in the 1 Evenement,' as that paper's correspondent.
To carry out his promise, the hon. member for Montmorency gave notice, that same day, that, on the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill being called for its third reading, he would move as follows :-
Provided that in the event of the company receiving from the Government of Canada any assistance, either by way of subsidies, moneys, land grants, guarantees, loans, or in any other manner whatever, the work of construction on the Quebec section be commenced simultaneously with the work on the woodland and prairie sections, and be completed and put in operation simultaneously therewith and before the Company exercise any of the powers conferred upon it by section 33 of the present Act in respect to ' lease and running powers over other railways.'
So, the hon. member for Montmorency was exceedingly anxious that this part of the road should be built. He threatened to move that the company should build the Quebec

9S88
section at the same time as the *woodland or prairie section.
The campaign carried on by the ' Evene-ment ' may, I think, be of use later, when elections are on (I know not when). In the meantime, let us look into the statements made by that paper, in the name of its party.
On June 4, the 1 Evenement ' stated :



THEY ARE AGAINST US.

[Stage Direction]
Yesterday, we put the question : ' Where are our representatives ? ' The answer came to us yesterday afternoon :

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Casgrain did not flinch to the last. He kept his word. He insisted on the Wade amendment being put, whereby the Grand Trunk would be forced to build from Quebec eastward at the same time as elsewhere ; and three members only from Quebec district voted with him.
Here is the vote as regards the province of Quebec :

[Stage Direction]
Casgrain, Pope, Morin, Talbot, Bickerdike, Fortier, McIntosh and Leonard.
Sir, all the members were at one with the ' Evenement ' on thinking that the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme was the only good one for Quebec and that, Should it fail, the welfare of the province would be imperilled. After giving the names of those who voted against the Wade motion, among whom I was, the ' Evenement ' goes on to say :-
Let us not forget these names..
We say : The rights of Quebec, and we are justified in so saying.
Who went to the pains of showing that the location running through Quebec is not the best in the general interest of Canada ? Not one. If what is required is a national route favouring Canadian ports, in winter and summer both, it will be felt by all that the Quebec route is the right one. Verbally, the Grand Trunk agrees to this location. But Mr. Laurier has warned us that great corporations easily avoid fulfilling their pledges. It was in order to prevent such an occurrence that an effort was being made to bind the Grand Trunk as tightly as possible. And our representatives have not even had the courage to safeguard our interests.
At that time we were lacking in courage because we would not vote in favour of the Wade motion ; but if these gentlemen have any courage themselves, they will support this scheme of the government, since it is practically the same as that submitted to the Railway Committee.
The ' Evenement ' has a further reference to the matter on June 9. But the hon. member for Montmorency, judging that that paper was not going far enough in support of his position, wrote to the ' Journal,' of Montreal. In that article he gave himself as favourable to the scheme and severely criticised the members of the province of Quebec who had not supported the Wade motion. Some time has elapsed since, and the hon. member for Montmorency, for some Mr. MALOUIN.
months, has disappeared from the political arena.
Before proceeding further, I must say that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), always takes such an active part in the debates of this House, was on the alert when the discussion I have referred to took place before the committee. He followed the debate on the Bill and voted against the Wade motion, on the ground that it was not comprehensive enough, referring only to the Quebec and Moncton sections. After the vote had been taken, the hon. member moved the following amendment:-
The company shall build simultaneously all the sections east of Winnipeg, until they are wholly constructed.
That is to say, the hon. member for East Grey also approved of the scheme under discussion by moving that all the sections east of Winnipeg be built simultaneously. How is it that to-day he has such a poor opinion of the scheme propounded by the government, whereby they propose to build that very road referred to in the Bill in accordance with the McCarthy motion. The only difference of opinion which existed between us at the time, was that we did not think it fair to force the Grand Trunk to build simultaneously the various sections from Winnipeg to Moncton, but we did not object to these works being carried out.
Pressed from all quarters by resolutions voted by the boards of trade of all the cities in Canada, the government decided to undertake themselves the construction of that road. There were three plans to select from. First, the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme; then, that of the Trans-Canada, and also that of the Canadian Northern. After duly considering these various plans, the government, and rightly so, I believe, decided that the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme was the most advantageous of the three, and that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company was the one which gave the country the best assurances as to the construction and running of the road.
But there are one or two points which came up in the course of the debate before the Railway Committee, an almost endless debate, I may say. Should the Grand Trunk Pacific build the line from Winnipeg to Moncton ? That was the question which had to be solved. The government deemed it in the public interest that this part of the road should be built at the expense of the country, so as to enable us to make of it a trunk line, ' a common highway ' for all railways. I believe that move was a wise one, and rejoiced with all those who wished this undertaking success. All the friends of the scheme are happy to see that the government has taken charge of this work.
Now, how was the government's proposal received ? It was thought at first that ail would be satisfied, that the Conservative party would greet this measure as a public

benefaction, and would consider it as the best thing that could be done. It was a mistake ; for in the minds of the Conservatives there is one thing that supersedes public interest, and that is partizanskip, the interest of their party. Partizanskip must have come out foremost and induced these gentlemen to reject the wisest scheme which has ever been submitted to parliament! These gentlemen are combatting to-day an undertaking which they themselves pronounced to be essentially of a national character, but above all and primarily in the best interest of the province of Quebec. The ' Kvfrnement,' which I quoted a moment ago, antagonizes this scheme and approves of that submitted by the leader of the opposition. Such are the ways of these gentlemen. Nevertheless, I am convinced that in their inner conscience, they cannot approve of the plan of the leader of the opposition.
Now, Sir, the Trans-Canada has also been mentioned ; it has been stated that such a road as that would have fulfilled the expectations of the province of Quebec. I am free to admit that this road would have been of great benefit to our district ; but I think the proposed road will be of still greater benefit, for instead of stopping at Roberval, it will come right down to Quebec. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), the recognized leader of the opposition in the province of Quebec, has opposed this scheme of the government on the ground that it will not be a colonization road, and that for the time being a colonization road is of greater import. Well, the reasons given by that gentleman are not very weighty. It is obvious that if we have such a transcontinental road, the northern parts of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario will thereby be opened up for settlement ; it will be an easy matter to build branch lines starting from the main road. That is exactly the answer given by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), in his speech the other day. He said : ' We are not opposed to the buildng of railways for colonization purposes. In Manitoba, for instance, as he pointed out, these roads are numerous, being ten or twelve miles apart. When you come before us, he said, with commendable proposals, the government will certainly grant help wherever necessary. I think that answer of the hon. minister is entirely to the point, and it is likely the hon. member for Jacques Cartier will have reason to regret having taken that position when he comes before the people.
A great deal has been said about the character of that road. Will it be a colonization road, or will it be used for the transportation of grain ? I think it will serve both purposes. As a colonization road it will render great success not only to Quebec, but to all the provinces through which it will pass. The North-west Territories will also profit by it, as they need railways for the carrying of their grain. The province
of Quebec will be benefited, since a large tract of fertile soil will be opened up to settlement It will thereby contribute to the greatness and prosperity of the country.
As regards the transportation of grain, it is apparently a difficult matter to settle. Some who pretend to know contend that this road will not be convenient for the haulage of grain. All that I can say is based on the reports of experts ; but I am inclined to think that on the whole there is some exaggeration in the contention of those who assert that not a bushel of grain will be carried by that roal. We are being told all the time that traffic in the west is congested ; that the means of transportation for grain are insufficient. If that is the case, new outlets should be provided, and that new road will provide an outlet for a certain quantity.
The hon. Minister of the Interior, in the course of his practical and able address delivered a few days ago, showed that railways, at the present time, carried at least one-thirteenth of the wheat crop. But we may^ expect further improvements from the application of science to railways. To compete with the water route, railways should be as perfect as possible, that is to say, the grades should be very low, rails very heavy, so that trains may haul loads twice or three times as heavy. Under those conditions. we may be sure that the proposed road will secure a certain part of the grain trade, and that before long it will be one of the most prosperous in the country. I think that in this respect, without being too sanguine, we may safely follow the advice of wise men, of those who believe this railway will benefit the various provinces of Canada.
The hon. gentlemen opposite have not only criticised the scheme (it was their right to do so), but one hon. member called it a hybrid scheme. Criticisms have been numerous. After listening to the numerous views expressed by his followers on the subject, the hon. leader of the opposition deemed it expedient to make a proposal, in order to relieve the situation. He thought, no doubt, that he would thereby bring all his followers into line, and offer a compact front to the enemy. Hence, the scheme which everybody knows. I shall not undertake to criticise it; hon. members of greater ability than myself have already shown that this plan is' the most laughable, preposterous one that could be devised ; that it is utterly impracticable. But the hon. leader of the opposition must have satisfied himself that it is an easier matter to find fault than to do right. With these two plans before us, we may well say that if the government plan is not perfect, that of the leader of the opposition is still less perfect.
I notice that the Conservative members from the province of Quebec (the bon. member for Dorchester, Mr. Morin, excepted),
[Stage Direction]


are not in the House. They who, some months ago, posed as saviours of the nation, who pretended to be the protectors of the country, and especially of the province of Quebec have disappeared. The hon. member for Montmorency, who made such an uproar, represents a constituency in the vicinity of Quebec. At the time he assumed he was representing not only the interests of Montmorency, but those of the city of Quebec. And in the ' Journal ' which I mentioned a moment ago, he devotes a special article to me, under the heading : ' Mr. Ma-louin's letter,' in which he states that if I had voted for the Wade motion, thousands of men would be seen at work in Quebec, and east and west of that city.
One fact must have struck the Horse : when the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme was launched, it was to go to North Bay and from there to Winnipeg. At that time, several members from Ontario approved of it. Interviews given by them appeared in the papers at the time. Since the government has undertaken to build the sections from Winnipeg to Moncton, these gentle^ men have changed their minds, and condemn the scheme. Would it be, perchance, because that road passes through the province of Quebec ? Do the Ontario members, and among others the hon. member for Toronto Centre, prefer to see Northern Ontario remain a closed country rather than let the province of Quebec have the benefit of the transcontinental railway ? I might well draw that inference from the views expressed by themselves and in their newspapers. I regret it exceedingly. As for us, in the province of Quebec, our policy is broader ; we wish to see all parts of the country have the benefit of public works. We wish to see all the provinces of the Dominion thrive and increase in number. We wish to see Ontario increase its population ; but on the other hand, we would like the province of Quebec have its share of prosperity and greatness. Let the sun shine for all of us.
It has been stated that this road would be going through unexplored parts of northern Ontario and northern Quebec. For how long a time have the hon. gentlemen opposite been satisfied that these parts are unknown ? Only since the government has taken the matter in hand. They never stated so when the Bill came up before the Railway Committee. But the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior have quoted from reports of geologists and engineers which give us concerning that country a knowledge almost equal to that we possess in respect to southern Quebec and southern Ontario. But the scheme did not suit them, because it was going to benefit Quebec.
Now, the hon. members on the other side
have brought forward a certain number of arguments against the proposed scheme, lei the Intercolonial. I think the road in Mr. MALOTJIN.
lows :-The country does not at present require another transcontinental railway. That contention has been shown to be entirely without foundation by lion, members on this side of the House. The lion. Minister of the Interior, among others, communicated to the House resolutions voted by the various boards of trade throughout the country, as well as the views of the press and of leading business men. But at a certain time, the leader of the opposition himself undertook to confute that argument by introducing a plan of his own making, ,a plan much more costly and less reasonable than the present one. That is the best evidence of the necessity of this road.
It has also been stated that the country-had not expressed and does not now express a wish for a transcontinental railway; that the government were too hasty in deciding to build such a road, that they had hot sufficient information as regiards the [DOT]character of the country through which this railway is to run ; that it will not be used for the carriage of grain as the .grain will be shipped by the water route on account of the lower rate ; that the part extending from Quebec to Moncton will parallel the Intercolonial. These are some of the reasons brought forward against the government scheme. I shall refer briefly to the last argument only, as the others have been peremptorily disposed of by hon. members on this side of the House. Opinions have .been quoted which cannot he contradicted. As regards the point raised in connection with the paralleling of the Intercolonial, that objection is childish, and for this reason. Because a railway starts from a certain point and reaches some other point, which two points are already connected by a railway, it does not follow that these two roads are parallel to the extent of injuring one another. The proposed road will not parallel the Intercolonial ; it will go through rich and thriving parishes, which to-day have no means of communication with large centres. I Shall not enter into details, as I think my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) has given on this point all the required information. But I wish to dtaw the attention of the House to the fact that there lias been in existence for some years past, since 1899, I believe, a charter 'authorizing the construction of a railway from Quebec to New Brunswick. And, if I am not mistaken, the government has granted a subsidy towards the carrying out of this scheme. Now, no exception was tnke'n at the time to this measure ; it was not objected that this road would parallel the Intercolonial, that It would be contrary to public interest to build it ; and if the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) had no objection to subsidizing that road, I (fail to see why he should have thought it unwise to approve of the present scheme on the ground that it would parallel the Intercolonial. I think the road ini

question is a very desirable one and in tbet best interests of the country.
Before taking my seat, I wish to say a few words of the contract passed with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. After they had decided to build the road from Moncton to Winnipeg- and to grant a substantial subsidy to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, towiards the building of the road from Winnipeg to Port Simpson, the government entered into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, whereby the latter undertook to lease and operate the eastern section. After looking into tlitot agreement, I believe the government could not possibly have entered into a more satisfactory agreement or one giving greater security.
The contract. Sir, starts by stating what are the obligations of the company. I shall refer to them as briefly ns possible. Clause 8 of the Bill x>rovIdes that the eastern section shall extend from Moncton to Winnipeg. X make this observation because it has been stated somewhere that the Grand Trunk Pacific, under the contract, are not bo find to operate the part from Quebec to Moncton. I believe it w'as the hon. member for Toronto West (Mr. Osier) who made that statement, and I think he hacked it up with the opinion of a lawyer -(Mr. Smith). Well, the hon. member murt be wrong ; there cannot be any difference of opinion on that point. The secbion which the Grand Trunk Pacific is to operate is the eastern section, which comprises the whole of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton. There cannot ,be any doubt as to that.
Now, what are the obligations of the Grand Trunk Pacific ?	(1) The company
agrees to lease ,the road, to keep it in repair and to make renewals when necessary ;
(2)	To operate the road, to repair it If necessary and to make of it a first-class road ;
(3)	To give a regular service to -the satisfaction of the government; (4) To carry freight by that road to Canadian sdaports, unless otherwise routed by shipper ; (5) To favour that road in the largest possible measure ; (6) Rate's not to be higher than on United States roads ; (7) To operate lines of steamers on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans ; (8) Lastly, the government will have the right to name a director on the board of managers.
Such are the requirements which the Grand Trunk Pacific Conrpany has agreed to fulfil. They are those usually found in leases ; they are as complete and perfect as possible. Should the company not comply with them, as stated in the deed, the latter may be cancelled.
Now, the question is raised whether the securities offered by the company are sufficient to warrant us in hoping that they will fulfil their obligations. Well. I think the securities are as good or even better than those which are attached to ordinary contracts.
As regards the roiling stock of this rail-
310*	-
way, the contract states that it should represent a sum of $20,000,000, of which $5,000,000 should be on the eastern section. These $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock are security for the payment of the rent as well as for the fulfilment of the other obligations of the company. Should the payment of the rent be withheld, or should the company fail in fulfilling their other obligations towards the government, the latter has a recourse against the company and mav force them to fulfil their pledges. But, more than that, the contract contains a very wise clause in virtue of which the government may insert in the deed all provisions required to ensure the carrying out of all the obligations agreed to by the company, and that to the satisfaction of the government. The amount payable for damages may be indicated in tlie lease. I believe the government have taken all necessary precautions to ensure the operation of the eastern section. Besides all these pledges, we have the machinery of parliament, which may be set in motion to confer on the government all the powers required to bring the company to time. For instance, what could there be to prevent the government, in case the company refused to fulfil their pledges, from cancelling the lease and operating the road direct, or making arrangements with other companies, the Canadian Northern, for instance. What could there be to prevent parliament from stepping in and forcing the company to fulfil their pledges, or enacting a penalty that would ensure their fulfilment?
I do not think there can be any doubt as to that, as it should,not be assumed beforehand that the company are in bad faith. If they are in good faith, as we have reason to believe, the contract will be carried out faithfully and the country benefited thereby.
The suggestion has been made that the company Should have an interest in the building of the eastern section, so as to ensure its operation. But after duly considering the matter, I think it is preferable that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company should not have any interest in that undertaking, and for this reason ; If the company were to have an interest in that way, they would be part owners, and we would not be at liberty to evict them. For that reason, I am of opinion that the scheme as submitted by the government is worthy of our approval.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Arthur Cyrille Albert Malouin: Mr. Speaker, when the House took recess, I was referring to the contract passed by the government with the company in connection with the operation of the eastern section. I stated, at the outset, what are the obligations of the company, and what means the government have of exacting their fulfilment. I

for one have no doubt that the clauses contained in the deed are quite sufficient to enable the government to enforce on the company the carrying out of their obligations. Of course, it should be assumed that the government of the time will endeavour to bring about the faithful carrying out of the contract. I understand perfectly well that if the government and the company are conniving in the non-fulfilment of the terms of the contract, the company may evade fulfilling them. But assuming that the government are in good faith, as I think they are,
I believe the company will abide by the contract, or else the government have all the means required for exacting its carrying out. Thus, the government have, in the first place, an action for damages on account of failure to carry out the contract. They have also the power to cancel the lease, to take possession of the road, to run it themselves or to have it operated by another company. No other conclusion can be arrived at, if the contract is looked into in a spirit of fairness. Consequently, the company cannot do otherwise than carry out the terms of the contract. The government are free to run the road direct or have it operated by another company. The contract is quite clear and cannot be transgressed unless both parties are in collusion.
It has been stated (and the statement has been peremptorily confuted by the Minister of. Justice) that the company instead of buying rolling stock, as required by the contract, might merely rent it. To my mind, that objection is totally unfounded for the reason that if the company borrow the rolling stock instead of buying it, they are not fulfilling their contract, and the government may step in and force them to fulfil their obligation, or confiscate the five millions which the government will have in hand as security. As alreadv stated, the company have to supply $20,000,000 worth of rolling stock, of which $5,000,000 are applicable to the eastern section.
The Grand Trunk Pacific are in good faith; there are clauses in the lease which show this clearly. One of the clauses says that the Grand Trunk Pacific reserve their right of supervising the construction of the eastern section. Why should they reserve that right, if not in order that the said section be built in the most economical way ? And if they are anxious that the utmost economy should be exercised in the carrying out of this work, the reason is that they intend to pay the rent, as agreed. Is it reasonable to assume that the company have given such close attention to all the clauses of the contract with the intention of laying it aside after signing it ?
There is one other clause which may be looked upon as evidence of the company's good faith ; it is that in virtue of which they reserve for themselves an option in case a second fifty-year lease should be granted. In accordance with that clause Mr. MALOUIN.
the government have the right to operate the road themselves if they think fit; but should they decide not to do so, and to pass a new lease, the Grand Trunk Pacific have reserved their right to take the lease on the terms offered by the government. Is not that an indication of the good faith of the company ?
Then the Grand Trunk is interested in seeing that the Grand Trunk Pacific should operate that part of the road, as laid down in the contract. The Grand Trunk Company guarantees the payment of one-fourth of the cost of construction in the western part. The government will have a first lien on the road on account of the guarantee on the other three-fourths of the cost of construction. The Grand Trunk will then have a second mortgage only to answer for their guarantee on the remaining fourth. Should the Grand Trunk Pacific neglect to operate the eastern section, and should the government, who are surely in earnest, apply the means at their disposal to force the company to fulfil its obligations, the Grand Trunk, having only a second charge on the road, would be the loser. Is it not a fact that the Grand Trunk would suffer loss, in case the Grand Trunk Pacific Company did not operate the eastern section, and as a consequence was sued by the government and turned over to a receiver ? For all these reasons, we are bound to come to the conclusion that the company with whom the government have been dealing are in earnest and anxious to carry out the agreement.
Now, as to the price, I shall say a few words only. The amount of money which this country will have to pay for the building of this transcontinental road is exceedingly small ; and those who are in a position to know, can hardly 'believe that the government of Canada has made such a good bargain. But the contract is'there all the same, and the railway will be built.
There is no doubt that the mortgage secured by the government on the western section of the road will ensure the full recovery of the government's outlay, should the company be unable to pay. It is admitted by all that the western part of the road will be paying. There is a certainty, as a consequence, that the government will have absolutely nothing to pay. Now, as regards the eastern section, the amount of three per cent to be paid at the expiry of seven or ten years will represent the Interest to be paid by the government. So, the government will have to pay seven years' interest on the eastern section, and seven years' interest on the Rocky Mountains' section. As stated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, the whole amount will come to thirteen or fourteen million dollars. To build a transcontinental road at an expenditure of thirteen or fourteen millions, seems to me quite a feat, and I am confident the whole country will endorse such a transaction. But reference is made to

liabilities to be met at the expiry of fifty years, on the bonds quaranteed by the gov, eminent. It is true that the government will have to pay for the debentures issued on the eastern section ; but it should not be forgotten that in fifty years from now the population of Canada will have reached the twenty or twenty-five million mark; that the revenue will be much larger than it is to-day ; that the road will be a paying one, and that instead of receiving three per cent, the government will be getting six or eight per cent, and the difference between the two rates of interest will be used as a sinking fund during the fifty years to follow. I may add that the road will remain the property of the government.
There are other clauses on which * sl all not dilate, but which it will suffice to mention in order to show the advantages ensured by this scheme. Thus, the government have reserved over that part of the road which is leased running rights for themselves and for other railway companies. Nor should we lose sight of the other clause which states that the material required for the construction of the railway shall be purchased in Canada whenever the company are able to secure them on terms as advantageous as in foreign countries. Let me also recall the right which the government have reserved of controlling the rates. That is an invaluable concession, aad of great benefit to the country. In conclusion, let me say this : It is the opinion of fa r-m.idrd people, of those whose views are not biassed by a spirit of partisanship, but who are rather inclined to consider the scheme on its merit, that this arrangement is an admirable one. I for one, do not hesitate to say that the government have succeeded in making a great bargain, such as is seldom concluded, especially by governments. As against the views of papers who are interested in finding fault with the policy of the government whatever it be, we have those of persons whose minds are not influenced by party spirit. The other day, I was reading the following item from the New York 1 Journal,' Reproduced in the ' Canada.'
A railroad is to be built in Canada parallel to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and which is to be called the Grand Trunk Pacific. The new road will in no way interfere with its old competitor, but will only help In developing the country, and bringing about good results for both roads. Within the next ten years the development of the Dominion of Canada will astonish the whole world. The products of the farms, the fisheries, the forests and the mines have increased by 283 per cent, and the manufactured goods by 738 per cent, under the Liberal rule.
Let me, Sir, draw your attention, in passing to the views expressed by the ' Moniteur du Commerce,' published in Montreal. That paper frankly supports the scheme propounded by the government. Such utterances have more weight than criticisms from opponents of the cabinet.
As regards the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee), urging that the government should acquire and operate the railways, and should build and run the proposed road, I believe that principle is a wrong one. . It is a good plan for the government to grant help towards building railways or to take charge of such work, but I consider the operation of railways by the government a source of danger. For that reason, I shall vote against that amendment.
The proposed road, to my mind, will be a benefaction to the whole of Canada. I am satisfied, Sir, that the province of Quebec, like the other provinces, will be benefited thereby. In my opinion a transcontinental railway that would have its terminal at North Bay, would not be of much good, and we from the province of Quebec would not have supported such a proposal. The province of Quebec and the maritime provinces contribute liberally to the expenditure made to ensure the development of the North-west. We do not object to that ; but when a transcontinental railway is being built, we want all the provinces to be benefited thereby. We rejoice at the government having decided to build a railway that will run through all the provinces of Canada.
Under the circumstances, I believe, Sir, that every member of this House who is anxious to help on conscientiously the interests of the country, heedless of party, should support this Bill. It Is a bold undertaking, perhaps, but worthy of the progressive government which control the affairs of the country. It was conceived in a lofty spirit of public interest, and let us hope that it will be carried out in the same spirit. And if it is, we may rest assured that the whole country will greatly profit by it, and that It will be one of the most efficient means of development for the next fifty years.


Mr.  A. F.@: MACLAREN (North Perth.) Mr. Speaker, I have one great regret, and that is that I cannot answer in the French language the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. His speech will not be criticised very much by me because I do not understand a single word he has said.


Arthur Cyrille Albert Malouin: I am very sorry for you.


Mr. MACLAREN (North Perth).: I do not think I would have said a word on the proposition which is now before the House had It not been for the fact that last session I spoke at some length upon the transportation question, and I feel it incumbent upon me to make a few remarks now upon the Grand Trunk Pacific project, which has formed the subject of this debate. Before proceeding further, I wish to present to the House resolutions passed by the board of trade of the city of Stratford and other parties. This is a copy of a resolution adopted by the Stratford board of trade at a meeting held on the 3rd of April, 1903 :

Moved by Mr. Wm. Preston, seconded by Mr. W. J. Mooney-
Whereas the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have made application to the Dominion parliament for power to build a transcontinental line of railway from Quebec city to a point at or near North Bay, and thence to the Pacific coast, and
Whereas the said company* have expressed their intention to ask for a cash subsidy to enable them to carry out the proposed work, and
Whereas the new railway will open up a Very large and important section of Canada not at present available for settlement, or served by any railway, thus contributing largely to the growth, development, and general welfare of Canada, and
Whereas it is desirable that these lands should be opened up and settled as soon as possible, therefore
Be it resolved, that in the opinion of this board, while not expressing any views on the general principle or railway subsidies, we believe it to be in the interests of the Dominion of Canada considering the magnitude of the new railway, and to insure its rapid completion, and the early settlement of our unoccupied lands, that a reasonable subsidy be granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific.
That a copy of this resolution be presented to the Hodse of Commons, through our repre sentative. A, P. MacLaren, M.P.



J. STEELE,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
That is the first resolution which I wish to present to the House. Then, I have another from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, which is as follows :
Stratford, May 6, 1903.
Dear Sir.-I beg to forward you in behalf of the membership of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman, resident in Canada, east of St. Clair river, the following resolution.
Whereas, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has made application to the Dominion parliament for power to build a transcontinental line of railway from Quebec city to a point at or near North Bay and thence to tho Pacific const
Whereas, the said company expresses their intention to ask for a subsidy to enable them to carry out the proposed work.
Whereas, the new' railway will open up a very large and important section of Canada not at present available for settlement or served by any other railway which if built, will thus contribute largely to the growth, development and general welfare of Canada.
Whereas, it is desirable tha>
these lands should be opened up and settled as soon as possible.
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of the membership of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman, resident in Canada, while not wishing to express any views on the principle of railway subsidies, we believe it to be in the interests of Canada, considering tho magnitude of the new railway and to insure its rapid completion and the early settlement of our unoccupied lands, that a reasonable subsidy be granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
In conclusion, we sincerely invite you to accept this resolution because we earnestly believe the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will open up a section of new country that will Mr. MACLAREN (Perth).
develop so rapidly that many deserving young men and women will find homes and employment in that portion of undeveloped Canada.
I remain.
Yours respectfully,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
I have another resolution signed by Mr. M. D. Hunter, from the joint general committee of adjustment of conductors and brakemen of the Grand Trunk system east of the St. Clair river, which is in the same terms as those which I have already presented, and I shall not, therefore, trouble the House by reading it. Now, the House will see by these resolutions1 that they were dated away back in April and May, at a time when the bodies from which these resolutions come had no thought whatever of such a tremendous project being brought before parliament as that which has been presented by the right hon. leader of the government. At that time they thought it was simply a case of connecting the present ends of the Grand Trunk Railway with the two oceans, and they had no thought, as I have said, of such a tremendous undertaking as that which has been proposed. As far as X am personally concerned, I would have supported the granting of any reasonable assistance to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and particularly assistance in extending the road west of Lake Superior into the great wheat fields and ranches in Manitoba and the North-west Territories and to the mines, the fisheries and the forests of British Columbia. I certainly would have been willing to grant any reasonable assistance to the company for this purpose, and as far as I am concerned, I would be inclined to support the building of all the railways that are necessary to open up and develop the country west of Lake Superior. I spoke last year at some length on the developing of the waterways from the head of Lake Superior down to points along the Georgian bay and Lake Huron, such as Collingwood, Owen Sound, Midland, Sarnia, Goderich and Windsor, and I still hold the views which I ex-' pressed then. I have not changed my mind as to that. I think these waterways should be improved, and I think, as many hon. members on this side of the House have said during the last few days, that the ports on our inland waters should be built up, that we should have first-class elevators constructed on modern principles, that we should have properly equipped warehouses and in some parts cold storage where perishable goods could be unloaded, stored and then shipped by rail. As I said last year, I think it would tie well if some assistance were granted to the parties who hold charters for the construction of a road from Collingwood to Toronto. If such assistance were granted it would enable shippers' to utilize the waters from the head of Lake Ontario, because, if there was a sufficient

freight supply from the west we would have steamers running from the head of Lake Ontario to the seaboard. If some of the traffic from the North-west could be secured for'such a route we could have a magnificent fleet of steamers sailing from Toronto to the sea. I think the sooner the government go to work and improve the waterways, while at the same time lowering the rates, the better it will be for the people.
X may say here, Mr. Speaker, that I have not changed the views which I expressed here last year, and I still think that the government should do something for the manufacturer and for the horny-handed sons of toil, who have hewed down the forests of this country and who have spent their lives in building up this country. They are the men to whom this government should first look and for whose benefit they should spend some of their money before opening up too much new country at such a tremendous outlay as that which is proposed in this measure. My idea is that if the government spent one-tenth of the amount of money in improving our waterways, more good would be accomplished than if they expended the $150,000,000 or $200,000,000 involved in this project. I do not think the country is ripe for such an expenditure or that it is prepared to assume liability for so many millions of dollars. I certainly think, as a business man, that the people who have built up the different provinces should receive some consideration. I do not say Ontario particularly, because I take a broad view of these questions. I would like to see every province prosper and I want to see every province derive its share of benefits from the expenditure of public money. I do not want to take a narrow view or to say that one province is jealous of the other. ' I never had any feeling against any province in the Dominion of Canada. On the contrary, I have the most kindly feel

ing towards all the provinces, and I would be sorry to see any hon. member of this House attempting to stir up any feeling between the different provinces. We are all one. As far as the maritime provinces are concerned, I am very glad to know that we have a magnificent market in that part of the country for many of our manufactured goods and agricultural products, and I think the maritime provinces have a kindly feeling towards the province of Ontario. I am glad to know that the province of Ontario reciprocates any such feeling and I think hon. members on both sides of the House will agree with me when I say that such a feeling should exist all along the line.
Now, a great many people talk about making Winnipeg a great centre, and they say that Winnipeg is going to become a great manufacturing centre. It certainly is a great city to-day, but I think that Fort Arthur and Fort William will become very important distributing points in the near
future. At the present time when the steamers arrive there;, they unload their goods through the freight sheds into the cars, the goods are hauled by rail to Winnipeg, unloaded there, carted up town, warehoused; the goods are sold by the wholesale men, then carted to the station again and shipped to different points all over Manitoba and the North-west Territories. I think it would be a wise step on the part of the government to assist in the building of warehouses at Port Arthur and Fort William and making these places the great forwarding points for the west. It would be a great saving in time and labour. It would save extra handling, extra haul and extra labour generally. I think that would be an important question for the people of the west to work out and I do not think it would do the city of Winnipeg much harm.
Now, in regard to the proposed road from Collingwood to Toronto, there are people who express the view that it would not pay, but as Collingwood is 300 feet higher than Toronto the grain could be shipped across very cheaply and if the most modern type of elevator were used it could be handled in the most economical way. There are only about six or seven miles upon which a serious grade would be encountered, but two engines could be employed at this place to haul the trains and a good speed could be maintained.
Since the government has so much money, I would like to see some of it expended in utilizing the water-powers and in building electric roads through that part of the province of Ontario lying west of Toronto, where, I believe, there are already twenty-one charters for electric roads. On these roads cheese, butter, grain, cattle, hogs, anything at all produced or manufactured in that district could be brought to Toronto. They could be stored in Toronto and shipped by boat in the summer time, or if they were not shipped by water, a lower rail rate could be obtained. In this way freight rates could be materially reduced. We all know that the rates are very high in the Ontario peninsula and in the west, and I would like to see warehouses, cold storage plants and elevators of the largest and most improved style, such as are to be found in Duluth. Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia, erected for the storage of produce. If the Americans can do this kind of wo"rk, there is no reason why we should be behind them and why we should not. by these means, get as low a rate of freight as do the people to the south of us. I think that it is much more important that relief should be given to those who are doing all this great and good work for the development of the country now than to spend money to open up an unknown and uninhabited country, which, as one hon. gentleman said the other day, is now known only by the birds.
[Stage Direction]
If these great waterways were utilized, we could not only ship our produce clean down to the sea, but we could bring back as return cargoes, coal and iron and also secure for Canadian lines that great foreign trade which now comes into New York and Boston and is brought west via Niagara, whence it is sometimes sent right through to Winnipeg and to all points in western Ontario. These goods we could haul up through our own country and we could have them distributed from Toronto, Owen Sound, and different points in the North-west, This, I think, is another strong argument in favour of utilizing our own waterways. Why wait one moment to relieve the people who have done all this good work ? Talk about waiting to open up this new country ! A year ago I asked the government to do something to reduce these high rates of freight throughout the western country. At that time we were promised a commission; we have been promised that commission for many years, and I understand it has now been appointed. The first thing that this commisison should do is to look into the possibility of lowering the rates of freight charged the people who are doing business now, not wait for those people who may be doing business in that new land when this railway is built, but to secure lower rates for our present producers, so that they will be able to compete with the rest of the world. The Prime Minister says : We cannot wait, we cannot wait. There is no one in this new land to wait But the great manufacturers of our older and thickly settled portions of this great Dominion can wait. These can wait, and then when this great road is built through an uninhabited land, it will not relieve the people or lower the rates on freight one cent as far as such commodities as butter, cheese, lumber, furniture, coal, &c., are concerned. I believe in giving now. If you have anything to give give it to the people who have done so much for the development of Canada, and do not wait to bring in new people and then help them. Give it, as I have said, to the people who have developed this country.
We have heard a good deal about an allCanadian route and about shipping our goods through Canadian ports. I fully agree with every bit of that, and would "like to ship everything that I buy in Canada and ship to the old country through Canadian ports. I hope the day will come when it will be possible to ship it all in that way. But is is useless to talk about that when the Americans give better rates. For instance, when I buy cheese in the west, the first thing I do is to wire to Montreal, Boston, New York and other ports asking the lowest rate for the goods to London, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, or whatever point I want to ship to, and I, of course, ship all things by the route which gives the cheapest rate of freight, and the lower the Mr. MACLAREN (Perth).
rate I obtain the higher price I can pay to the farmer for what I buy from him. Let us make our Canadian railways and waterways right and then we can get cheaper and lower rates by a Canadian route. Then, and not till then, will goods be shipped by an all-Canadian route. Such a route could be secured, an all-Canadian route, cheaper than any American route, for one-sixth the money it is proposed to spend upon this great Canadian transcontinental railway.
The hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) talked a great deal about the cheap railway haul from Chicago to New York. I would ask permission to submit to the House a statement from the record of the Chicago board of trade of the shipments of wheat and corn at that port for the season of 1901, of the average freight charges per bushel between Chicago and New York by lake and rail, and all-rail routes, and a statement of the summer traffic between Chicago and ocean ports. That statement is as follows :
From the records of the Chicago Board of Trade, the shipments of wheat and corn at that port for the season 1901, were :
Receipts from all sources. Shipments hy lake.
Bushels.	Bushels.
Wheat. 51,197,000	 31,521,000
Corn, 84,136,000	 34,000,000
Wheat entered into consumption	 9,000,000
Corn entered into consumption	 18,000,000
The balance of the receipts of these two cereals not here accounted for were distributed eastward by the railways, some for export, but mostly internal domestic consumption.
Average freight charges per bushel, season
1901,	Chicago to	New York.	By	Lake and	By Lake and	By allCanal.	Rail.	Rail.Cents.	Cents.	Cents.Corn.. ..	.. 4-61	5-16	9-21
Wheat ..: .. 5-11	5-54	9-88
	Season,	1901.	
Grain for export, all-rail from Chicago to following points :-
The summer tariff from June 1st to October 21st. as follows :-
Per
Bushel.
Boston, 16 cents per 100 pounds, i.e. 9-60
Portland, 16 cents per 100 pounds, i.e 9-60
Montreal, 16 cent3 per 100 pounds, i.e. 9-60
Thus, you see by these figures that a great deal of freight is shipped from Chicago to New York, some by water and rail and some all-rail, but in every case, the water transportation is very much cheaper. I would also like to read to the House the rate of freight from Buffalo to Liverpool in 1901. That rate was 111 cents from Buffalo, while from western Ontario it was 21 cents per 100 lbs. What I am trying to explain to the House and to the country is that by cheapening transportation a great deal of money may

be made for tlie farmers, the producers and the manufacturers of this country, if we were to improve these waterways so that we could get the same freight rate enjoyed by the people to the south of us. Last year it was stated that if the Americans had had to pay as high a rate of freight on goods shipped in the United States as we 'had to pay in Canada, they would have to pay on the amount of freight they shipped over $200,000,000 more than they did pay. That, Sir, would build the Grand Trunk Pacific in one year if we had as much freight to ship as they have. May I call attention to the comparative rate on cattle from American and Canadian points to the seaboard. Prom Toronto to Portland the rate on cattle is 28 cents; from Chicago to Portland, 800 miles greater distance, the rate is the same, 28 cents; from Chicago to Montreal the rate is 25 cents ; and from points in the county of Perth, Bruce or Huron to Montreal it is 33 cents, or 8 cents more than it is from Chicago to Montreal. You can see for yourself, Mr. Speaker, that is a very important, a very serious matter, not for the people who are going to come in and inhabit this new country seven or eight years hence, but to the people who are now here, and that is why I am so anxious to see a reduction in freight rates. To give a concrete case, Sir, the rate on cattle from the towrn of Listowel, in the constituency which I represent, is $1.25 per head higher to Montreal than from Chicago to Montreal, although from Chicago the haul is 400 miles longer than from Listowel.
In 1901 the United States shipped 500,000 head of cattle to England. If they had paid the same rate of freight that we pay in Canada, it would have cost them $500,000 more.
I might talk for hours along these lines, illustrating the need of reform in this direction, but I do not intend to take up much more of the time of this House. Thefe is one thing, however, that I wish to speak about. Hon. gentlemen talk about running freight by train through to the Atlantic coast from Portage la Prairie, Brandon, Indian Head, and all the great grain-producing centres of the North-west. But when a car leaves any of these points in the fall it does not return to the west for a month and that is one reason why I say it is necessary to have proper elevators built at the head of Lake Superior. You can run a car many times between Brandon and the head of Lake Superior while it is making one run through to the coast and return.
It would require an immense amount of rolling stock to handle that trade in that way. I hope the time is not far distanti when the government will build these elevators. There are immense elevators in Minneapolis and St. Paul. I saw one a few days ago in Minneapolis built entirely of cement, and this material could be utilized
by the government in building elevators at the head of Lake Superior. The farmers could ship their grain to these elevators, and receive in return warehouse receipts, upon which they could obtain money from the banks. If the government would do something of this kind, and drop this expensive scheme, involving an expenditure of $150,000,000, they would better serve the real interests of the country.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice).: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a long speech, which I think would be out of place at this stage of the debate. A great many members have been trespassing upon your kindness and upon the kindness of the House by taking advantage of this debate to introduce all sorts of subjects which are not relevant to the question before the House. I am going to follow the example of the hon. gentleman who has preceded me, and make my remarks very short. I think by this time the members of the House have made up their minds which way they are going to vote. There are sufficient facts and figures before the House to enable any man who takes the trouble to look into them(. to form a judgment, and a sound judgment on the question. Therefore, I have agreed with the whip on the other side of the House not to speak more than ten minutes, and if the hon. members who follow me will do the same, we shall get through this debate all the sooner, for your good, Mr. Speaker, for the good of the members and for the good of the country.
The principle of having a transcontinental railway line is admitted, so much so that the hon. leader of the opposition himself announces that the policy of the Conservative party is to have a transcontinental line. The discussion then, comes down to the method to be adopted for the building of that line. We have a proposition submitted by the government and a kind of proposition submitted by the opposition. As I do not want to give a silent vote, I desire to state in a few minutes why I favour the one scheme rather than the other.
This question of a transcontinental railway involves a question of transportation, a question of colonization, and, as the right Won. leader of the government has said, also a patriotic question-a question of transportation by attempting to relieve the congestion in the wTestern plains, to regulate the rates, and to give the farmers the benefit of low rates; a question of colonization, by opening new fields, and bringing in settlers to develop the natural resources of the northern country : and a patriotic question by having an all-Canadian line to carry Canadian products over Canadian territory to Canadian ports, and that. Sir, not only for six months in the year, as the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition proposes, but for twelve months in the year.

la dealing with this question of transportation, some lion, members seemed to think that the only thing we have to transport from the western fields to the Atlantic seaboard is wheat. They do not take into consideration that there are ranchers on our western plains who raise cattle. They do not take into consideration the fact that though during the last few years we have had good crops in the North-west, there are other years when the crops are not so good. I remember, when I was. in the North-west in the late eighties and the early nineties, and when the crops failed, the general advice given to the farmers was to go into mixed farming. What does that involve V It involves the raising of cattle, and that the dairying industry will develop. It has been admitted by the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who professes to have made a special study of the transportation question, that cattle cannot be properly transported by being carried by train to Port Arthur, and there put on vessels and carried down the lakes and the St. Lawrence, but that they must be shipped by railway.
Now, what is the scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition ? He proposes to buy from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company a portion of their line which is most unprofitable, a line which is mostly curves and grades, and which runs through a country where you can see, in place of vegetation, only burnt trees sticking out of rocks. He proposes to buy that line and pay millions of dollars for it. How is that going to relieve the congestion in the Northwest and help to bring the trade of the west to our Atlantic seaports ? The hon. gentleman proposes to make that line a common highway, over which the Grand Trunk Railway will obtain an entrance into the Northwest. He also proposes the purchase of the Canada Atlantic Railway, and by that means run the Intercolonial over this common highway. What would be the result V The result would be that all these lines would be able to carry traffic to Port Arthur and Fort William during the summer months, where the traffic would be transshipped to barges and sent down the lakes and the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic ocean. But what would be done in the winter ? The Grand Trunk Railway would take part of the traffic, and, instead of carrying it to Canadian ports,, when it reached Montreal, it will go on to Portland. Consequently the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition involves this result, that for six months in the year the Grand Trunk Railway would carry Canadian produce through Canadian territory down to American ports. The proposal of the hon. leader of the opposition adds absolutely nothing to the transportation facilities of the country, but it involves handing so many millions of dollars over to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company Mr. BUREAU.
to put into their pockets, and so many millions to the Canada Atlantic Company.
The scheme evolved by the government, on the other hand, proposes to open up a new territory, to develop the natural resources of the country, to induce immigration to come in. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) the other day answered this argument by saying that he had from a reliable source the information that the territory now opened up in the west and covered by railways could accommodate 5,000,000 people. Well, Sir, it may accommodate 5,000,000 people, but it will not do so except on one condition. If a settler goes into a country that is already pretty well settled and where he has railway facilities, he must have a certain amount of capital to establish himself. He has to pay higher for the land, perhaps from $5 to $8 an acre ; he won't live in a sod house when he sees his neighbour occupying a substantial residence, and he must have better stock and better surroundings generally, than he would think of procuring were he settling in a new country. Now, when a pioneer settles in these newly opened up regions, the first year he can cut coird-wood, and' haul logs, ,and make a little money, and gradually he finds that he has his farm cleared and ready for cultivation. These are some advantages of settling in a new country, which favour the poorer settler, and they are not to be despised. I was also surprised to hear the leader of the Quebec Conservatives (Mr. Monk) speaking in the name of his province, say, that the line proposed by the government would run through subArctic regions and through a barren and desolate country. Let me tell him that north of the St. Lawrence in the province of Quebec, in the counties of Portneuf, St. Maurice, Maskinonge, Berthier, Joliette and Montcalm through which this railway will run, the hon. member (Mr. Monk) makes a big mistake when he refers to them as subArctic regions or barren lands. There is no richer region in the Dominion of Canada than is this particular region I have spoken of. We have there vast water-powers, which are to-day neglected. Members of this House remember that when they visited Shawinigan Falls a couple of years ago. they saw for themselves some of the enormous water-powers of the St. Maurice river and the further you go north the more abundant these water-powers become. I am told by experts who have gone into that country for the Quebec government, that the La Tuque Falls which are 60 miles north east of Grand-M8re can develop unlimited power. Our friends opposite are talking about high tariff, and about the bringing in of manufactured products from the United States ; but let me tell them that manufacturing will go where it gets sufficient and cheap power to operate it. South of the

St. Lawrence river, where the leader of the opposition wants to run a railroad, you hardly have a water-power at all, but on the north, on the Gatineau river, the Li&vre river, the River St. Maurice, and the Matta-win, there is sufficient water-power to drive the wheels of industry of every manufacturing concern that can possibly settle in Canada. If you open up that country to the north, then instead of sending your trade to the United States as the scheme of the leader of the opposition would do, you will see settlers going in there, you will see manufacturing industries being developed there, and you will see that country the home of a numerous and a contented people. Five years ago the Shawinigan Falls and Grand-M&re were in a wilderness -to-day Grand-Mere has a population of 5,000 and Shawinigan Falls, after four years, a population of 3,000. I have no doubt that six years ago the member for Jacques Cartier would describe both Shawinigan and Grand-Mfere as being in a sub-Arctic and barren country. Let me say that there have been $5,000,000 invested in these two great water-powers on the St. Maurice river within the last four years. I felt somewhat ashamed to hear an hon. gentleman of the position and standing of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) belittle the northern part of the province of Quebec, in order to try and justify himself for opposing a scheme which he knows to be in the best interest of Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, my ten minutes are nearly up and as I will not break my word to you I have but a few sentences to add. By building this transcontinental line we will open up fertile regions through new Ontario. We have 16,000,000 acres there and we will develop them and bring them under cultivation. In Quebec a splendid territory will be developed by this railway which will be the home of manufacturing for Canada, just as New England is for the United States. We have in that country cheap water-powers sufficient to drive the wheels of industry and manufacture, and we will have availing of these water-powers thriving industries which will produce for the western farmers all the manufactured goods they are able to consume. I need not refer to the fertility of the Peace River district, for we are all agreed as to that. I am in favour of this scheme proposed by the government because it is a patriotic scheme. I am in favour of this scheme because it will carry Canadian trade through Canadian territory twelve months in the year, I am in favour of this scheme because it will develop the resources of our own country and attract settlers to us, I am in favour of the scheme because it is a grand national scheme promulgated by a wise government headed by a great statesman.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I congratulate my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) upon the brevity with which he has stated all that can be said in support of this scheme, and I do so all the more heartily because he has done in ten minutes which it took the Finance Minister and the Minister of the Interior each five hours to accomplish. Hon. gentleman on both sides must realize that the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Bureau) has been a very useful contribution to the debate, when we remember the lengthy speeches we were forced to listen to from members on the Liberal side, who knew no more about the question than the hon. member for Three Rivers does. I must, however, say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bureau) has made the same argument as that used by all of the government supporters, including the ministers of the Crown who have spoken on this question. He told us that this scheme is a patriotic scheme, and that it is needed for transportation purposes, but he did not refer at all to the resolution now before the House ; which as most hon. gentlemen seem to have! forgotten, I shall read. This is it:
That it is expedient, in connection with the Bill now before this House, respecting the construction ot a national transcontinental railway, to ratify the agreement set forth in the schedule to the said Bill, entered into on the 28th of July, 1903, between the government and certain persons on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company to be incorporated by parliament at the present session thereof, and to authorize the government to do whatever is necessary to give full effect to the said Bill and agreement.
Now, Sir, I have not heard from the government or their supporters one word to prove that it is expedient to ratify this agreement. They seem to assume that because they allege it is a patriotic scheme and that we need transportation facilities, that therefore no matter what the price, the money shall be taken out of the pockets of the people to provide these facilities, and that it follows as a consequence that it is expedient to do so. I should consider that this expediency was similar to the expediency which the executor of an estate would adopt if he had in mind the conserving of that estate in the best interest of those to whom it belongs. I would consider expediency, that care which would dictate to the trustee that he should see that the bargain he is making is a good one, and that he is paying no more for what he gets than he ought to pay. I have listened attentively to this debate and I have heard little indeed as to why this scheme is expedient in the sense in which I understand the proper meaning of the term. It is my duty to draw the attention of gentlemen opposite to the fact that if this bargain is not a good bargain for the people of Canada, the patriotic side of it is not one which we should consider very seriously. We Conservatives do not need any lesson in patriotism from gentlemen on the other side. There was a time when we did not hear so much from

these gentlemen about a scheme being a Canadian scheme, or about a scheme freeing us from the bondage of the United States. There are gentlemen on the Liberal benches to-night who occupied seats here when blue ruin was the talk of the Liberal party, and when they contended that Canadian affairs would better be regulated from Washington. Things of that kind were said by the Liberals until the people of Canada became disgusted, and while we may congratulate these politicians that at last they have come to recognize that national questions must be dealt with from a Canadian standpoint, yet we must remember that the people sent us here to make the best bargain we can in their interests, and in the interest of the country. In every speech made on that side of the House we have had this menace of the abrogation of the bonding privilege repeated over and over] again. This, if it were not an insult to Canadian manhood, I would call a red-herring drawn across the trail in order to conceal from us the fact that the bargain is a mighty bad one.
On this resolution itself we did not hear from the right hon. the First Minister. He was probably within his rights when he nodded his head as you, Mr. Speaker, put the resolution to the House; and we have therefore to hark back to what he said on the Bill itself in order to find out the reasons he gave why this agreement should be ratified. Naturally, before deciding whether this was a wise and prudent bargain or not, the first thing we would ask of the right hon. gentleman is, where is your evidence of its acceptability ? What have you got to show that this is a good bargain for the people ? Well, after the right hon. gentleman had stated his case, we found a former colleague of his-one under whose particular administration this project would have naturally fallen, but who preferred to resign his seat in the cabinet rather than give it his endorsation-rising in his place and, in an argument which covered the whole ground, and which lasted some two hours and a half, putting the right hon. gentleman out of court. We found his former colleague proving that it was a most dangerous, improper, unsafe and absolutely foolish bargain. So convincingly did he state the case against the government, that the government have found it necessary to prolong this debate, in order to give every one of their supporters, on whom they could possibly count to make any kind of a plea in support of this scheme, an opportunity to reply to the strictures of the hon. the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. The ex-minister was the first witness to prove that this was a most expensive bargain. He told us, and his figures have not been controverted, that this projected road was going to cost us in the neighbourhood of $120,000,000 or $130,000,000. It is true that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who was Mr. LANCASTER.
put up by the government to reply, undertook to show that an expenditure of $70,000,000 would cover the cost, but he did not go into the details, and he did not cover the whole of the project at all when he gave those figures. Contrast these estimates. We have first the estimate of the right hon. the First Minister, made upon the introduction of the Bill connected with this resolution, that the road was going to cost $13,000.000 and not a cent more. It is rather a striking commentary on the administrative ability of the First Minister, that the first witness against him was his former colleague, the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, a gentleman who was high in his counsels and respect until he disagreed with him upon this question. And we had the ex-minister-whose experience and knowledge in railway matters would entitle his opinion as an expert to much greater value than that of the right hon. gentleman-declaring that the cost, instead of being $13,000.000. would be $120,000,000 or $130,000,000. This was rather hard testimony for the right hon. gentleman to refute; and it is evident how hard pressed he was when he had to solicit the aid, in order to bolster up the case of the government, of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who, as this House well knows, is prepared to argue convincingly on either side of any question, just as his interests of the moment dictate. Well, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) estimated the cost at $68,000,000 or $70,000,000-considerably less than that of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, but considerably greater than that of the First Minister. Then we had the hon. the Finance Minister brought to the rescue, and that hon. gentleman went the Premier one better, and reduced the cost from $13,000,000 to $8,000,000. Could we require any better proof than these contradictory estimates, furnished by the principal supporters of this bargain, by the promoters of it, to show that the government are really rushing into this vast undertaking without having the faintest idea of what it is really going to cost the people. Following the Finance Minister, we have had any number of gentlemen on the government side giving us estimates varying from $120,000,000 down to $8,000,000. Of the lot, the hon. the Finance Minister is the most penurious, the most anxious to make the figures as small as possible, and we are expected to find our way out of all this maze and come to a decision on which we can rely with any degree of certainty. All we have to go by is what evidence and information we can glean from the present debate; and if this discussion were to last three months instead of three weeks-aye if it were to last three years instead of three weeks-the people would be better satisfied than to let the contract go through with no other than the meagre information submitted to us. The opposition. Sir, would be false to their

duty if they did not keep up this debate, if for no other reason than to obtain every possible scrap of information we can possibly secure before committing the country to this extravagant project. In the course of three weeks which this debate has lasted, we have been given no reliable information as to what this project is going to cost. We are still completely in the dark as to the amount of liability we are about to impose on the country. For that reason alone my constituents-those who voted against me as well as those who voted for me-would consider that I had done wrong if 1 did not make every effort to obtain for the country more information before allowing this resolution to go through. Even those who voted against me at my election would be justified in saying :	' Although we did vote
against you, we expected, when you did go to Ottawa, that you would find out what you are called upon to vote for, before giving your vote, and if you cannot do that we will get somebody who will. And they would be quite right. For my part I cannot understand how any lion, gentleman can take the position taken by the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Hr. Bureau), of declaring that as this resolution was proposed by the government he was supporting, he was going to vote for it without any regard for its merits or the consequences. That is not the position we on this side take. We want to find out all about a question before casting our votes either for or against any proposition submitted to us.
The right hon. the First Minister gave us four reasons why this scheme should go through. First, he said, he wanted it to carry grain. It seems to me, however, that my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) rather gave the real reason when he said that it was not to carry grain the Premier wanted the road but to carry the elections. But for my part, I am confident that the elections will not be carried, as the hon. the First Minister intends they shall, and the people will once more put the Conservative party back into office, because that is the party which is willing to do what is right. I do not believe that the few millionaires, which the right hon. gentleman hopes to construct out of this scheme at the expense of the people, will be powerful enough to carry the elections. I have too much faith in the integrity and independence of the people to believe that all the millions which can be raised out of this scheme by the half a dozen millionaires it is going to create will be able to carry the election. It is an insult to the intelligence of the people to suppose that they will not see through a scheme of this kind and that they will be carried away by such corrupt and clumsy devices in this year of grace, 1903.
The second reason which the First Minister gave for asking this House to pass this resolution was that the scheme would
only cost the people $13,000,000. I have shown how he has been put out of court by his own witness on that point and will not trouble the House by further discussing it. And he gave a third reason, that with regard to the bonding privilege. I feel like apologizing for even mentioning that matter in this House. It was a trashy argument to be put forward by anybody, and it has been exploded by every speaker on this side who has dealt with it, and has been dropped by hon. gentlemen opposite like a hot iron or-well, I hardly know what comparison to offer, because it has been a quicker and more impulsive letting go than anything I can think of in ordinary life. I notice hon. gentlemen opposite have not referred to the bonding privilege question since the address of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell). That hon. gentleman has courage far greater than his stature. I must say this for the hon. gentleman-he can speak for four or five hours, and in ten minutes he can use more words than most of the rest of us can use in twice the time. But that hon. gentleman did so thoroughly explode the arguments of those on his own side with regard to the bonding privilege that I feel sure that none of the others will deal with it. I do not think, for instance, that the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), who is the only member of the government present and the only one who seems to think it necessary to pay any more attention to this debate-on which I congratulate him-will try to revamp this bonding privilege argument. If he is to speak in this debate, I should be glad indeed if he, as a man of business experience, and one who must know a great deal about the shipping and handling of freights on railways, steamboats and in every other way that goods are transhipped, would corroborate, if he can, some of the arguments of the hon. member for Hants when speaking on this question. I think the country also would be very glad to receive his views upon it. No doubt, the hon. gentleman will say that the bonding privilege has nothing to do with the question. The right hon. Prime Minister quoted a statement made by the President of the United States-he did not say when, but I think it was fourteen or fifteen years ago-a statement evidently made for election purposes. It was just like any one of the many efforts in the United States to twist the British lion's tail made just before the election, in order to please a certain element and win its votes. In the same way, President Cleveland, seeking to be re-elected, made his threat as to what he was going to do to us poor Canucks with regard to the bonding privilege, I thought the fact of the Prime Minister referring to this utterance was very suggestive. For, just after talking this kind of nonsense, Mr. Cleveland went to the country and was overwhelmingly defeated. I think that when the Prime Minister appeals to the people and they see that this bonding

privilege talk is all that lie knows about the expediency of the contract lie asks them to confirm, tfiey will tell liim lie had better accept the same verdict that Mr. Cleveland got, as he seems to know just as -much about the bonding privilege and the transportation business as Mr. Cleveland did. As to the speech of the hon. member for Hants, I think that those who heard it-though I could hardly blame any hon. gentleman who did not hear it at all, because it took up half of one day and pretty nearly the whole of the next until evening-will agree with me that if that speech is printed and circulated it will convince the people that they ought to vote for the party who oppose this legislation, and not for the party on whose behalf the hon. gentleman (Mr. Russell) was speaking. He gave some very strange arguments in support of the resolution. He acknowledged the fact-as will be found on referring to page 9235 of the current ' Hansard '-that the building of this line from Quebec to Moncton would probably have the effect of turning the Intercolonial Railway over to the scrap iron heap. Referring to that point, he said that a new invention or appliance took the place of the old, and the change is beneficial to the community at large. He instanced certain manufactures, and said that one manufacture took the place of another, and so, as one railway became inefficient another would have to be constructed ; and if the construction of the new road-and there he was referring to the Quebec and Moncton line-had the effect of reducing the Intercolonial to the scrap iron heap, it did not make any difference, because we should have a better road. There was a distinct admission that the seventy millions of dollars spent on the Intercolonial are of no account.
I know-and I have been aware ,of it, perhaps, longer than some hon. gentlemen on the other side-that, taking them as a whole, the people of Canada are not a stingy people. The people of Canada are ready to pay and pay pretty well, for anything they require in the interest of the country. But when an hon. gentleman representing a constituency in this House tosses aside seventy million dollars of their money as of no account, says that it may be thrown in the scrap heap, and calls the institution on which the money has been spent a mere ' raft in the shipwreck '- those were his words when he said that the Intercolonial as compared with the whole transportation question was a mere 'raft in the shipwreck '-I think the people of Canada will say to him that it seems to be a pretty dear raft, that it is made of the most expensive kind of timber, and that the pieces, instead of being fastened together with iron bars, are fastened together with gold plate. On this road we are asked this session to vote $3,000,000, for what ? The other day the Governor General consented Mr. LANCASTER.
to a Supply Bill covering one-fifth of the
estimates for the current year, these having been passed by arrangement between the leaders in this House. The remaining four-fifths of these various items still remain for discussion. And this total of $3,000,000 to be spent on the Intercolonial is for what ? It is for betterments. The government propose to spend this amouut of money to put the road in more perfect condition than it is in to-day. The right hon. Premier gave the key note for the chorus of his followers with regard to the Intercolonial when, in introducing this Bill, he said that the Intercolonial was built for military purposes and not for purposes of transportation. The hon. member for Hants took courage from that, and went on to call the Intercolonial a 'raft in a shipwreck.' Yet this is the road upon which this government in its seven years of office has spent $20,000,000. And now, we are told the weeds should be allowed to grow up on the Intercolonial, and the rails, perhaps, be sold as scrap iron, and the whole institution allowed to go to waste. Yet, while this is looked to as the result of that policy they propose to spend $3,000,000 to still further improve the Intercolonial.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the exMinister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) when he considered the improvidence and outrageousness of the scheme used very mild language when he talked about hysterical frenzy or temporary madness as having surely had something to do in dictating this policy. How could any hon. gentleman who had the least respect for himself, who valued the good opinion of those whom he met day by day, and joined with the Minister of Finance and other hon. gentlemen supporting the government in voting these millions every year, including the part of this $3,000,000 already voted this session, thus declaring that the Intercolonial should be kept with the top notches railways-how could he at the same time support a scheme which involved the idea that the Intercolonial was not fit for the purposes of a railway and was so regarded by the government.
What are the facts. Mr. Speaker? Does any one doubt that the Intercolonial is fit for the purpose? Is it not doing all the business that it can do or that can be done by any railway? Is it not reasonable that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) should urge that the Intercolonial should be used as far as it goes and that it should be extended, as he suggests, up to the great lakes in order to afford the transportation facilities that are there required. Is it not reasonable that we should avoid the absolute waste of paralleling the road which we already own, paralleling it and paralysing it by building a commercial enemy. That is the proposition of the government, and it is one that should be condemned, while I submit that the alternative proposi-

tion of the leader of the opposition, so far as the Intercolonial is concerned, is one that must commend itself to this country.
The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell), one of the principal supporters of the government, also distinctly said that it did not matter to him whether the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), in leaving the government, was actuated by high conviction or by resentment. Let us look at the state of political morality which this indicates. It mattered not to him whether it was from honest conviction that a matter was wrong and ought not to be forced upon the country, that the hon. ex-minister abandoned his office, gave up its emoluments, and left the cabinet councils of the country, or whether he did it in a pet, angry at some imaginary rebuff he had received. What conditions are we coming to in this House ? Are we going to vote things simply because the right hon. the Prime Minister says we are to do so? Because he bows to you, Mr. Speaker, as much as to say: Enough said; that is my resolution; I desire it to pass; what right has the country to know what my evidence is in support of it ? I am Premier, I bow to you as a token that I want that to pass; that settles it-it must be passed, and the people of this country and the opposition are not entitled to know any more than I choose to tell them as to whether it is expedient or not.
As representing a somewhat prominent constituency, one with over 30,000 people, I protest. I want some evidence in justification of the expenditure of this money before I can bring my conscience to consent or before I believe the consciences of the people I represent would consent to this deal-for it is nothing but a deal-going through.
The fourth reason, and the Premier touched a good many times on it-and with all respect, I wish to say I was astonished at his hardihood-that this railway must be built was because the Conservative party once made a pledge that they would do something of the same kind, and that he thought he should redeem the pledge of the Conservative party. Charity begins at home, and if there is any charity in a Reform government, it should begin there too. We do not ask the Premier to pay our debts; we have had no claims filed against the Conservative party and proved in the ordinary way, to show that there are any debts of this kind against the Conservative party. We know, however, that there are a good many claims to be satisfied by the Reform party, who in 1890 turned out of office better men than they are, by making pledges they did not intend to carry out. To show how callous this government are in the matter of broken pledges, I would remind the House that in the speech from the Throne, placed in the mouth of His Excellency by this government, a pledge was made that this question would be dealt
with in a very different way, and we have heard no apology as to why that pledge was not carried out. I would advise the right hon. gentleman to pay his debts, so recent and so fresh in the minds of the people, before he talks such nonsense as he has talked about the debts of the Conservative party. I tell him, without fear of contradiction, that the Conservative party does not owe a single debt on account of broken pledges and does not want any advice from any Premier of any so-called Reform government.
To do the hon. Prime Minister credit he said that it was for patriotic reasons that it was essentia] that this railway should be built. If I understand my constituency and the province of Ontario, and in fact all the constituencies of the Dominion of Canada-for I do not understand that one Canadian is different from another in his knowledge of patriotism and of his business duty-I believe thoroughly that the people of Canada want the business which we are sent here with a solemn trust to conduct, dealt with on its merits and without any such nonsense as patriotism being used as a reason for a bad Bill going through. What patriotism is there in making five or six millionaires at the expense of the people? Have we to constitute Morgans and Vanderbilts and Rockfellers, five or six of them, before we can call ourselves a nation, before we can wake up and find ourselves a nation? Has the Premier to go to sleep again and have another dream and find that we are not a nation because we have no multi-millionaires ? We are sent here as the representatives of the people to look after their interests, and it is not fair to-take from every family of five what this scheme will take. It will cost in round numbers 8150,000,000, with no interest and no return, and it is not fair to thus assess every poor man's family $150 in order to make five or six millionaires.
No case has been made out in support of this scheme. The Conservative party does not stop short at criticism. They would be justified in saying : Because you have not proved to this House that this measure is expedient, therefore we must assume it is not expedient. The Conservative party have investigated the facts; they have said to themselves and to the people, If the government will not ascertain the facts and take the trouble to have surveys and plans made and to ,see what they are doing, we will do it. although we have not such facilities as the government have, although the expenses we make will come ;out of our pockets and not out of the public exchequer, although every telegram we send and every engineer and every explorer we employ, must be paid out of our own pockets-although all this is so, still, in the interest of the country, we will ascertain what this is going to be. And so at considerable expense, and at the cost of a great deal of

time and energy, we have shown to you and to the House and to this government- if they will be good enough to open their ears wide enough to take it in-what this is going to amount to.
What does it amount to? It is going to cost $150,000,000, and the canals of the country are going to be rendered useless if the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite is good. I do not think their arguments are good in that respect. I think the canals will still do business, 'but I do not think this railway will do the business that hon. gentlemen opposite pretend it will do. If their arguments are good this road ought to be able to handle all the traffic and the canals are to be put out of business. The scores of millions of dollars which have been spent in the building of our canals are to be wasted the moneys spent on the Georgian bay are to be wasted, the moneys spent on the St. Lawrence canal system are to be wasted, if their arguments are good, because according to these hon. gentlemen this railway is going to do more than any other railway can do. It is pretended by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that this railway will be able to carry thei grain from the west and that another railway cannot do it. It is a strange thing that this railway should possess a supernatural power to do that which these hon. gentlemen say other railways cannot do. If these hon. gentlemen are correct in what they say, then the canals and the existing railways are all bad, and if they are not, this particular railway will be no good. The Canadian Pacific Railway is not able to carry, according to their argument, any such quantities of grain from the west as this railway is going to carry under similar conditions, though the trains are hauled by the same kind of engines and through the same kind of country. The argument of these hon. gentlemen is that unless this particular railway is constructed the grain cannot be carried out of the country, because hon. gentlemen say that this railway can do what other railways cannot do. The proposal of the hon. leader of the opposition has all the advantages that the government scheme assumes to possess and at one-third of the expense. There is no question but that all the grain can be brought out and that the fruit from the eastern provinces can be sent up to the west. I was amused to hear the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) talk about shipping his apples and other fruits to Great Britain. Does he not know that we cannot send our apples and other fruit from the Niagara district to Winnipeg because the freights are too high to allow us to do it ? The miller in the North-west Territories gets his barrel of flour carried to St. Catharines for less than one-half the freight that the fruitgrower has to pay to get his barrel of apples carried up to Winnipeg. Do the people in the hon. gentleman's county want to send Mr. LANCASTER.
their fruit to Great Britain or to the west ? If they want to be national In their ideas let them start to build up a trade at home. Does the hon. gentleman not think that hon. gentlemen who sit in this House, that the friends and relations of hon. gentlemen who sit in this House, and that the people of Canada should be considered a little in this question as well as himself and those he speaks for ? I am not going to say that because the farmers of Ontario had to build granaries in the pioneer days, that because they had to take care of their grain until the railways were built, that because they had to hold it for months and months ; that because in the early days of Ontario the farmers did not have the advantages that are now afforded to the people of the west, we should not give these advantages to the western people. The section of the country which I have the honour to represent is not stingy and it does not object to any proper bargain that is entered into in regard to railways, but if the country is going to build railways, build them on a sensible plan ; do not build them and then hand them over to a corporation at the expense of the people who get no benefit from them.
I want to say one word in regard to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce IRt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). The right hon. gentleman made a speech upon this question the other day. Of course, if the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) does not agree with the scheme, the next best man to appeal to is the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), because it is a money question. The hon. gentleman said that the whole cost would be for the interest, which amounts to $8,000,000, but he did not tell us what it would cost for the payment of the prinicpal. The next hon. gentleman that we would be apt to call upon to give us some information in regard to this project is the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. The right hon. gentleman addressed a long speech on this question to this House, or rather to the other side of the House. During the course of this debate I have noticed that when cabinet ministers undertake to address the House on the subject they turn their backs upon you, Mr. Speaker, and upon the people of the country as represented by the opposition, and they devote their attention to trying to convince their own followers that they had better vote for this scheme. It is quite evident that the cabinet ministers from the right hon. Premier down are afraid to trust the fidelity of hon. gentlemen sitting behind them, and therefore, whilst endeavouring to convince their own supporters, they turn their backs upon you,, Mr. Speaker, and upon us. because they think it does not make any difference about us if they can only hold the fifty' majority which they have had since 1900. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce tried to convince the hon.

gentlemen behind him. He told us nothing whatever about the present project, but he said that if the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie's scheme had gone on the country would have been more prosperous in 1885 than it is now. I do not know. I may be stupid, but if that is the case I do not know why it is that we have not 15,000,000 or 20,000,000 people here now, although I am sure this country has enjoyed a large measure of prosperity since 1878, when Mr. Mackenzie was put out of power because he was considered by the people not to be able to carry on the affairs of the country in such a way as to promote its prosperity. I am sure it has prospered since and if the same proportion was to be given effect to we would get ourselves into that same maze that the hon. gentlemen on the other side have got themselves into when trying to show us that this is a good scheme. He did tell us he was afraid that in the face of our record we would not be able to make it go down with the people that this was not a good thing for the country. I recall the time three years ago next November when the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce came over to St. Catharines to defeat me and to endeavour to have the present Senator Gibson elected by a good majority. He made a speech in the Opera House in St. Catharines and he undertook to speak in regard to the fiscal policy. His speech on that question was about as applicable to the fiscal policy as his speech In this House the other day was applicable to this railway project. He made about the same kind of 9 speech in comparison as he made here the other day, and the result was that a majority in 1896 of 119 was converted into a majority in 1900 of 396. I can assure the hon. minister that if he comes over at the next election he will save me a lot of trouble and a lot of election expenses. If he will come over to the Opera House in St. Catharines and deliver the same kind of a speech upon the railway policy that he delivered In regard to the fiscal policy on the occasion to which il have referred, I think he will increase my majority from 369 to probably 1,069.
I was going to speak for a moment in regard to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), who addressed the House upon this question yesterday. He said that he had listened very carefully to the speeches delivered during this debate, that he had read ' Hansard ' containing what he had not listened to, and that he had not heard one word uttered by any hon. gentleman on this side of the House taking any exception to the paralleling of the Intercolonial Railway. Here is an hon. gentleman speaking in this House trying to belittle the arguments of the opposition and stating that no hon. gentleman on this side of the House has found fault with this road because it is paralleling the Intercolonial Railway. Tlie hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell), 311
who spoke a little while before him, had taken up an hour or more with his argument in respect to the bonding privilege and he had devoted another hour and a half in trying to convince the House that the paralleling of the Intercolonial Railway was not in reality a paralleling of the Intercolonial Railway, but a paralleling of the Grand Trunk Pacific by the Intercolonial Railway. That is about the way he left the matter when he got through with it, and ,then he said that the effect of it was that if the Intercolonial Railway were turned into scrap iron it would not make any difference.
I would advise the hon. member for (Welland) Mr. German to consult the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) as an eye and ear specialist, so that when he reads ' Hansard ' again and listens to the debates in this House, he will understand better what has been said. The hon. gentleman (Mr. German) could not give any reason to the people of Ontario as to why $60,000,000 or $70,000,000 should be wasted in paralleling the Intercolonial Railway, towards the construction of which the ratepayers of that province have contributed largely. He knew that if the new line paralleled the Intercolonial Railway it should not be built, and then he resorted to the device of saying that he heard no one on this side of the House making objection to the paralleling. Well, if he listened he would have heard it. As the hon. gentleman (Mr. German) comes from the Niagara district-although not as good a part of it as I come from-it might be thought that if I did not refute what he said I had acquiesced in it. I am bound in the interests of the honest reformers and the Conservatives of that district to refute his statements at the first opportunity. He told us that he understood in the Railway Committee that no substantial assistance was to be given to the Grand Trunk Railway. I was in the committee when the Grand Trunk Railway Bill was being discussed, and I know that we had all we could do to keep gentlemen opposite from pledging the government that there would be no financial aid given to the company, if a charter were passed. They were afraid that the government would give financial assistance, and on the very preamble of the Bill, and all through its clauses they endeavoured to provide that there would be no financial assistance given to that company. We have heard from the Minister of the Interior, and we have heard from other gentlemen from the west, that the great cry in the North-west is that they cannot get trains enough to take the products of that country to the seaboard. If that be true, and I suppose it is, it would seem that a railway should give a bonus to the country for granting permission to enter that region. When a railway builds there, it is not a case of taking chances. Subsidies are paid to railways when they un-



dertake a venture which looks doubtful, but *which if successful may add to the prosperity of the country. Subsidies are paid to railways to open up countries so that crops may be grown and hauled out. But here is a country in which the trouble is that the existing railways cannot handle all the freight that is offered to them. Is that not a good reason why this railway in the prairie section, should not be subsidized, but on the contrary that it should be thankful to get permission to enter that country and to do the business which is waiting for it. The hon. gentleman from Welland (Mr. German) also told us that there was nothing in the contention that this new road would parallel the Intercolonial Railway, because if the government did not parallel the Intercolonial the Grand Trunk Railway would step in and do it itself. Well, I would point out to him that the Grand Trunk Railway could not build one foot of road to parallel the Intercolonial Railway unless parliament gave them a charter to do so. What idleness it is for the member for Welland to say that unless the government built this section of the road, the Grand Trunk Railway Company would build it and themselves parallel the Intercolonial Railway. Why, the Grand Trunk Railway cannot do any such thing unless they get a charter. They cannot build a foot of road unless they get a Dominion charter where it is to the general advantage of Canada or a provincial charter with respect to a portion of the road which affects only a particular province. The member for Welland says that we are lat the mercy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in this matter, when as a matter of fact the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway must and should be nt the mercy of parliament for any favours which they may get, or for any permission to build roads which they may obtain. Sir, the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was absolutely correct when he talked about the hysterical frenzy of the government. You would imagine that they believed that the Grand Trunk Railway could take the people of Canada by the throat and say : Unless you build this railway from Quebec to Moncton, we will build it, and we will put your Intercolonial Railway out of business. That is the sort of argument that comes from the hon. member for Welland. Then the hon. gentleman told us that we had the advantage of government ownership in the road from Moncton to Winnipeg, because we will build the road ourselves. What is ownership in a railroad or in a House, or in a barn, or in anything else if it is not the right to use it; and has not the government of this country handed over the right to use that road and the practical ownership for fifty years ? What good is the title if we have not the user ? If the scheme of the leader of the opposition were adopted we would have the right to use the roads acquired, and therefore we


Edward Arthur Lancaster: would have all the attributes of ownership; but in this case you build the road and for half a century you hand over what is practically its ownership to the Grand Trunk Pacific. It is not my habit to say what any man's constituency will stand from him. but if I know the people of Welland, I doubt very much if they will not resent the action of the hon. gentleman (Mr. German) in underestimating their intelligence to such an extent as to suppose that the arguments he has advanced to this House would appeal to any reasonable man.
The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German does not care what will happen fifty years hence and the member for Hants (Mr. Russell) told us that he was tired of hearing people talk of fifty years hence when he would be in his grave. Well, I should have thought that the Prime Minister would have given a little attention to this matter before he entered into this scheme. You cannot convince any business man in this country, nay, you cannot convince any schoolboy, that in a matter of national concern you must not look forward for fifty years. Why, Sir, this road will have made millionaires of its promoters or it will be found to be an utter failure in the jnext fifteen or twenty years. We know that railways which were constructed fifty years *ago are not doing business in the same way to-day as when they were first operated. How does any gentleman know in this age of scientific research and invention what the conditions will be fifty years hence ? I notice that charters which this government have passed speak about steam and electricity as being possibly set aside and their place taken by an atmospheric pressure or other discoveries as motor power. It may be that in handing this railway over to the Grand Trunk Pacific for fifty years we are handing it over for the time that it will be of any profit whatever. That can be obviated by owning the whole line now, and by controlling it now, or, it can be obviated by adopting the scheme of the leader of the opposition which will cost one-third the money that the government project will cost, and be more advantageous to the country.
Tiie lion, member for Welland also claimed that this road should be built because it would bring freight to the Intercolonial Railway from the North-west. The Intercolonial Railway is not in the hands of a receiver ; it is owned by the people ; it is doing business at the old stand, and carrying a great deal of freight. Is it not getting freight from the North-west now ? If the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition is carried out and the Intercolonial Railway is extended to the North-west by the amalgamation he proposes, will not the freight come down over the Intercolonial Railway as well as over others ? Is it goiug to be turned away or sent to the North Pole or to Chicago or anywhere else?

Does not the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition give us all the benefits of the scheme of the government itself, and at one-third of the expense, while at the same time the people have the whole control V 1 want to mention another matter. The government, by the solid vote of their party two or three months ago, voted down the proposition made by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and seconded by myself, to bring the Intercolonial under the terms of the Railway Commission Bill. They gave as a reason for voting down that proposition that the Intercolonial Railway should have a little more, power than the other railways. If that is the case, why do they want now, to throttle the Intercolonial and go back on their vote of two or three months ago ? Why do they not pro-, tect their own business 1 Why do they give to strangers, or at any rate to people doing business in opposition to the people they represent, the advantages which they claimed for the Intercolonial Railway three months ago ? The question was whether the Intercolonial Railway should not be allowed more control over freights, so that it could relieve the situation, even if the railway commission did not succeed in doing so, it being understood that the railway commission must prevent discrimination, and give the same chance to all railways carrying to the same points and under the same conditions. It was thought that the Intercolonial Railway might be treated as an exception. If there was any merit in the opposition of the government to the proposition made on this side of the House, it was that the government, being actuated by proper motives, not by political motives, but only anxious to relieve an improper and hazardous situation, would in some special case create a disposition of freight and transportation for the benefit of the people. The Intercolonial would perhaps carry freight cheaper and in a less formal way than the other railways. If hon. gentlemen opposite voted against that proposition on the ground that the Intercolonial Railway should be strengthened, being the people's road, if they were sincere in that position, and if there is any consistency about them, why not apply the same view to the present case, and carry out the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition, which is to strengthen and increase the powers of the Intercolonial Railway ? And if there is any benefit to be conferred on the people by the Intercolonial Railway not being under the railway commission, then, so far as you increase the powers of the Intercolonial, so far you increase that benefit.
I must pay the compliment to the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costi-gan) of saying that I was very glad the other night to hear him say that he had fished and trapped and hunted over that part of New Brunswick through which the supposed railway is to run, and that, al-311i
though he would not dare to compare it with the fertile lands of the Niagara district [DOT] or other parts of the province of Qntario, it was not bad land, and that he thought the railway might be built through that country.
I suppose as soon as the railway is built the bad land will be turned into good laud, the muskegs will be filled up, and joy and happiness will reign. I was very much pleased', however, to hear the hon. gentleman, because it was the first speech I have heard him make into which he did not drag tlie religious question. The hon. gentleman spoke with more evident anxiety about the result than he usually does, probably because he thought the proposition before the House was fraught with a good deal of anger to the government which since 1896 he so ardently supported. I was also glad to hear him say, that though the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals had left the government on this question and was not going to be so strong, yet his friends were not going to leave him. I agree with the hon. gentleman's conclusion, but not with his preamble. I do not think that because the hon. ex-minister left the government on this question that his friends are going to leave him, nor do I think that the fact that he left the government was any sign that he was weak. Almost every man who spoke on this question in support of the proposition of the Premier, made three-fourths of his argument in abusing the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals; but if that hon. gentleman lias not their support, he has strengthened a code of morality in this country which says that if you do not think a thing is right you should not vote for it. I think the people of this country will want a better argument than abuse of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals to convince them that the' government are right and that he is wrong. Let the hon. gentlemen on the government side who are putting this scheme through tell us where the hon. exminister is wrong. Please do not call him names ; he is a Canadian as well as the rest of you. The row has cost him, and not you. So far as we know, he has been actuated by proper motives. When the people come to vote on this scheme at the polls, I think they will vote disapproval of the government and not of him, or else they will require more substantial arguments than have been addressed to this House in support of the government scheme. They will not, I think, conclude that because a man has voted against the government in power and because he has voted against the extravagant project now submitted to us, he is therefore everything that is vile, and worthy of the severest censures.
I want for a moment, before concluding, to refer to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan). That hon. gentleman waxed quite eloquent and patriotic. In fact every time this government proposes to do something, their followers become patriotic and

indulge in windy screeds about Canada being a large country and about our being all Canadians, and so forth. He even became prophetic, and predicted what was going to happen to the two political parties in the coming election. He was not so indiscreet as the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who told us that we were going to have general elections this fall. He was more careful-probably he had been cautioned not to be too explicit-and he said that whether the general elections came off this fall or two years hence-and they must, under the constitution, be held inside of two years- the banners of the Liberal party would wave triumphantly at the head of the poll. On these banners, he told us, would be inscribed the words ' Laurler, Progress and AHc-tory,' and on the banners of the opposition would be found the motto ' Borden, Blue Ruin aud Gainey.' I wondered what in the world was the matter with the hon. gentleman ; I wondered who had been talking blue ruin to him ; and on trying to find some cause for his language, I noticed that his al-nis were stretched out exultingly towards that seat on this side which used to be occupied by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when in opposition, and when he was wont to preach the gospel of blue ruin. The hon. gentleman imagined for the moment that he was addressing the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and was really confounding with that hon. gentleman the leader of the opposition. But I can assure the hon. member for Cumberland that he is mistaken about the banners of the two parties. Although I am not in possession of the secrets of the Liberal caucus, or in the confidence of the leaders of the government,
I think I can venture the assertion that on the Liberal banners we will find emblazoned these words: ' Laurier Millionaires at the Expense of the People,' and on the Conservative banners ' Borden and the People's Rights' ; and as soon as the people are given the opportunity, they will vote for the Conservative candidates and the Conservative leader, who has done more for the XJeople's rights in the three years he has been leading his party in this House than any Reform leader has done in the past forty years.


Mr. W. ROSS (South Ontario).: I feel somewhat diffident, Mr. Speaker, in occupying the time of the House at this late hour of the session, especially as we shall by next week have had the longest discussion on record in the history of this confederation. But on this occasion I feel impelled to speak, for two reasons. First, that I do not care to give a silent vote upon this great question, one of the greatest that has ever occupied the attention of parliament. And, secondly, because, from a careful attention to this debate, I find that the more the proposition before the House is discussed, the better it commends itself to my support.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And although X am the sixty-first speaker to address the House on this resolution, and although it has been fully debated in all its details, I am sure that its merits will still bear further discussion, and that therefore I may be pardoned if I give what little aid I can to the promotion of this project, which I consider will be of immense advantage to the people of Canada.
Notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) who has just sat down, I am confident that the people will show by their votes at the next election, whenever that may be, that they heartily approve of this measure and are convinced that it is in the interest of the country at large. The hon. gentleman stated that this measure would simply create millionaires and ruin the country. That is not how I understand it. I have studied the Bill very thoroughly, and even at the risk of wearying the House, I wish to give some of my reasons why I think the scheme a good one. So much has been said'by those who have preceded me that it is almost impossible to introduce any new matter into this discussion ; but this is one of the many good things which will stand repetition. X^et me read the resolution which the right hon. the Prime Minister moved when he brought down this Bill :
Resolved, that It is expedient, in connection with the Bill now before this House, respecting the construction of a national transcontinental railway, to ratify the agreement set forth in the schedule to the said Bill, entered into on the 28th of July, 1903, between the government and certain persons on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company to be incorporated by parliament at the present session thereof, and to authorize the government to do whatever is necessary to give full effect to the said Bill and agreement.
We have also an amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) in favour of government ownership.
Let me say briefly that I can well understand the earlier movements in connection with the introduction of this Bill. During the earlier part of the session the Grand Trunk Railway asked for a charter to extend their road from North Bay westward, and they wanted a subsidy of $6,400 and 5,000 acres per mile. The Canadian Northern Railway were also asking for bonuses. These matters were all engaging the attention of the government. Indeed, this parliament Itself, In the interest of the Mackenzie & Mann syndicate, who are the head of the Canadian Northern Railway, voted a very substantial bonus for the prairie part of the road. All these matters were pressing upon the government, and the government scarcely knew what to do with the tremendous demand upon them for subsidies, which would take millions and millions out of the people of the conntry. And. apparently, they did not see their way clear to satisfy all these demands, but they brought down this Bill which they present

to the House. Let me read the title and preamble of the Bill :



BILL No. 235.

[Stage Direction]
An Act respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.
Whereas, by reason of the growth in population and the rapid development in the productiveness and trade of Canada and especially of the western part thereof, and with a view to the opening up of new' territory available for settlement, both in the eastern provinces and in the west, and the affording of transportation facilities for such territory and for other reasons, the necessity has arisen for the construction of a national transcontinental railway to be operated, as a common railway highway across the Dominion of Canada, from ocean to ocean and wholly within Canadian territory; and whereas an agreement has been entered into bearing date the 29th day of July, 1903, between His Majesty the King of the first part, and Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, C.B.. G.C.M.G., and others, representing therein and acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company incorporated by an Act of parliament of Canada passed at the present session thereof, of the second part, making provision for the construction and operation of such a railway, a copy of which agreement forms the schedule to this Act ; and whereas it is expedient that parliament should ratify and confirm the said agreement, and should grant authority for the construction in manner hereinafter provided of the eastern division of the said railway between the city of Moncton in the province of New Brunswick, and the city of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba.
Now therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows :-
There we have the matter before us. We have had the subject dealt with by sixty members of the House, including the Prime Minister, who presented till the points in connection with the Bill so well and forcibly. It will be noticed that the preamble begins :
' Whereas by reason of the growth in population.' We are quite sure that in the early eighties and up through the early nineties the growth of population in this country was very slow. It was very slow for various reasons. We, as Liberals thought that the fiscal policy of the Conservatives, then in office, had a tendency to retard the growth of the country. We saw that the industries whch had been promised did not spring up, and we attributed this fact to the fiscal policy which had been adopted. We saw that our young men had gone to the other side of the line, that a large population from French Canada had gone into the eastern States, that everywhere our people were leaving us and that our growth in population was not at all satisfactory. But I am glad to assure you, Sir, that since the advent of the Liberal party to power the growth has been rapidly increasing. We have had a natural growth of the country and have also had an immigration into Canada which has been a surprise to everybody. We have talked about the matter in the House and the records show that the immigration into
the country has been far and above anything ever known here, and that it is likely to increase. Indeed, the immigration into this country during the last fiscal year was about 125,000 people. That is very significant, when you remember that for many years the immigration did not exceed 5,000 or 6,000 per annum. That immigration is likely to increase. Why V Because we have the country to attract them; because the country is well governed and has a policy which is suitable to immigrants making life pleasant and easy for them. Under these circumstances, we are sure the immigrants will come into this country and will come in very fast. The second portion of the preamble says :	' And the rapid development in the productiveness and trade of Canada and especially of the western part thereof.' Let us consider, for a moment or two, the growth of trade which is the second reason why we are asked to vote for the Bill. When the Premier puts forward this resolution he does not say to us ; You are my servile followers; vote for this. He gives us reasons. And the second of these reasons is the rapid development of our trade. We find that in 1882, when the first transcontinental road was built, our total trade amounted to $221,356,703; and in 1902, twenty years later-just, two decades, the lifetime of one individual-it. had increased to $467,000,000. That is, it has doubled in the last twenty years and most of that increase, I am assured, has come in the last seven years. The total revenue of the country in 1882 was $33,383,455, and the revenue for 1902 was $66,500,000. We find a great increase in the bank assets also. The government are not by any means the only people to whom the increased business of the country is to be credited. There are the business people besides. The banks have a hand in practically all the business of the country, and they get a rake-off for the work they do. The total bank assets in 1882 were $227,426,835. In 1902, the total bank assets had grown to $041,985,372, more than keeping pace with the growth of the trade of the country. And if hon. gentlemen say that the government did not do it all, we quite agree with them; we say that the country grew independently of the government. The money in the savings banks including the post office savings banks in 1882 amounted to $21,786,661. This has grown until in 1902 it amounted to $59,147,226. These figures show the growth and expansion of our trade generally. But we know, independently of the figures that all our industries have been growing. In my own riding we have a smart little town. The industries of my own riding have grown rapidly. We can see them grow. New additions are being put upon factory buildings, more men are being hired, and new stuff being turned out. We have enormous factories in our town now, and what we see there is only indicative of what is going on
[Stage Direction]
all over the country. In my travels I meet with gentlemen engaged in the manufacturing industries. They tell me that business was never better; their trade in many cases, is overdone; they cannot get the hands to do the business that offers. Our mines have been very productive. We have heard the hon. members for British Columbia telling us of the productiveness of their mines. The coal mines and other mines operated in the east have been operated largely, as also have the coal mines in the west on this side of the Rocky mountains. The price of lumber has advanced, the enormous cut of logs has produced a great quantity of lumber and not only has the home trade in lumber been good, owing to the activity in the building trade, but the export lumber trade has also been highly satisfactory.
The agricultural and live stock industries have felt this prosperity, and the farmers in the county of Ontario, which I have the honour to represent, are doing well to-day. They receive high prices for their live stock, good average prices for their grain, and they have large crops. Only the other day I had a letter from one of my constituents who said he ha'd been farming for thirty-five years and that this was the best crop that he had ever had ; he had oats running as high as 100 bushels to the acre.
These are the things that tell the growth in trade. This government have observed this growth all over the country. We see an enormous development of trade in the North-west. A few years ago they grew ten million or fifteen million bushels of No. 1 hard wheat; to-day they grow sixty to seventy-five million bushels and some of us who are here will live to see them grow hundreds of millions* of bushels. These things show that the trade of the country is growing.
The next reason we are asked to vote for this is that it will open up a new territory which is available for settlement. We are not asked to vote blindly : reasons are given why we should vote for it. Is this country peopled as it should be, this enormous country with three and a half million square miles of territory ? We have opened up simply a fringe of our country along the United States border, but it is now proposed to go farther in and open up the country and say to the people : Come and take the resources that lie here.
This railway will pass in its progress of 3.500 miles across the continent through one territory and five provinces. It passes through the province of New Brunswick with 28.200 square miles of territory, through Quebec with 298,900 square miles, through Ontario with 222.000 square miles, through Manitoba with 73.956 square miles, through British Columbia with 383.300 square miles, and through the North-west Territories, through a very rich and fertile part of them, with 906.000 square miles of territory. This is a vast area of country Mr. ROSS (Ontario).
to be opened up. There is not much more to be opened up except Nova Soctia and Cape Breton and the unorganized districts which are estimated at about one and a half million square miles of territory.
As you think of the vast extent of this country you wonder why the attention of the world has not been tinned to Canada before this, Canada with its enormous territories of valuable arable land. Are they productive these territories and provinces ? What have the members who represent them said ? What did the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Morrison) tell us of the enormous development and riches of his territory in British Columbia ? What did the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Mae-pherson) say with regard to the wealth of the district from which he comes ? These two members have spoken for British Columbia ; they have said that there is a practically inexhaustible supply of minerals in that country ; that the forests of that country, which some of us have seen and know to be of immense wealth and size, will be sources of wealth for many years to come ; that they have great fisheries, while the valleys although small, lying between the enormous hills that reach into the skies, are wonderfully productive. Then there are the territories. In previous sessions we have heard more than one member tell of the boundless resources and vast wealth of their districts and we know the productiveness of the fertile prairies. The member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has spoken of that during this debate ; he has told us of the resources and the needs of that country-and its greatest need is a new railway.
The hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Maclde) who is a practical lumberman and has gone through a great part of northern Ontario, told us the other day, and I have it from his own lips, that it is not by any means all water and rock ; that there is a great deal of arable land there and that it is not impossible to run a railway across the route projected. The hon. gentleman I may say as a lumberman keeps a man employed constantly to bring him reports of that country so that the information which he gives to the House is of additional value. We know too from the result of the explorations made by the Ontario government that north of the height of land, between that and .Tames' bay. there is a large section of arable land, estimated at anywhere from sixteen to twenty million acres, which is very favourably situated and through which this railway will run. Besides that, does not New Ontario contain a vast amount of minerals ? Gold, which is one of the most valuable minerals in the world, is found there. Iron of all kinds is found in great abundance on the north shore particularly in the section of the country which was stated by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) and again by one of the members to-day, to be practically not a farming

country. This then will be a mineral country. We had a report in the newspapers the other day that the explorers who are working in that country have found a vein of lignite coal. This would be a wonderful boon to the great manufacturing province of Ontario.
We have heard also from the province of Quebec. The ho.n. member for Gaspfi (Mr. Lemieux) and the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) have told about the wonderful resources of Quebec and we know that the northern sections of that province are very similar to the northern sections of Ontario. This northern part of Quebec must indeed be very rich, not only in farming lands, but in timber. There is a crop there now all ready to cut, a crop of fir, spruce, pine, birch and the various woods ready to be manufactured into lumber and into pulp.
The hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) said in this House a few nights ago that this railway will pass through his county, the county of Victoria, N.B., and he has told us about the wealth of the section of the country through which it will pass in that province. He tells us it will not be by any means through a mountainous country, that it will be through a rolling country andl that it will have streams and rivers ; that it will be rich when it is opened up and that the reason it has not been settled before is simply because it is inaccessible. To secure settlement you must have a railway ; that is the thing to attract people and if you put a railway in there, he is sure that the country will be filled up in good time. He says that this is a feasible route for a railway and that there is timber there. It is true that this has been cut over but there is still a great deal qf it left besides the new crop. He also * stated that there are minerals there and a little further down large quantities of coal. But tof these we have heard from the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). Then we have here an important reason. He tells us about the wonderful riches of that country and he tells us that in his capacity of commissioner of roads he had to travel over a large part of the country and that he knows its wealth. If time would permit I would be prepared to present to this House any quantity of information that I have had from books which I have read npon the various sections of this country, the reports of botfinists, reports of geologists, reports of engineers, reports of exploring parties, reports of hunters and reports of travellers who have travelled over the route which this railway proposes to traverse and they say it is a good country.
Mr. WILSON.: Give us the reports.


William Ross: I do not have them here. I have been in the library reading them.


Uriah Wilson: I did not mean to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I understand him to say that he would give us these reports if we wanted them, but that he did not want to take up the time of the House in reading them. It would be very' interesting if we could have them.


William Ross: I will not give them to you just now. I would rather do something else. I prefer to take the statements of men who represent these constituencies, of men who know something of the country of their own personal knowledge and when they upon their honour and standing in their places as members of this House report these things to me, I am in honour bound to believe that they are so. That satisfies me of the productiveness of the country through which this railway is to pass. The next reason why I am going to vote for this measure is that it will afford necessary transportation facilities. Have hon. members asked for this ? Has the country asked for this ? Yes, the members of this' House have demanded it. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) has had a motion on the Order Paper for two years to say that he believes that it is in the interest of this country that more transportation facilities should be given the people of the west, and other western members have voiced that need time and time again. We have listened to them very patiently as they have told of the needs of the country as thev exist to-day. Now. you will find that settlement has gone in advance of the railway in many cases. The railway should go in some respects in advance of settlement, but in this case settlement has gone in advance of the railway. Of the 125,000 settlers who have gone into that western country this year as immigrants, some thirty odd thousand are Americans. These people have come from a country where they know what railways are, they have come from a country that has been served by railways, and to ask them to go into the North-west without railway facilities is not a wise thing to do. If they do not have railway facilities they will become discontented, and if they become discontented they will look again to their homes in the south, and if they do get railways from that country connecting with the sections of the country where they are now located they will exchange their trade with the people of the south, while, on the other hand, if this railwav is built the trade of these peo-i pie will naturally be drawn down towards ; eastern Canada. They will be able to ship their grain down over this line. I need not state here the advisability of encouraging the development of such a trade as that The point has been already ably argued in this House. With this railway these set-i tiers will be able to trade with the great :	industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Their national sentiment would draw them

to the south, but if they can make use of this road then we shall overcome that great difficulty of the settlement of New Ontario and bring these people into touch with the industries of Ontario and Quebec. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are in the best position to handle this scheme because they already have their feeders in eastern Ontario, they already have their trunk line and I believe these people can handle this scheme better than any one else. We have by our vote in parliament given large sums to different parts of the country to remove the congestion in trade. We have done wonderful things in connection with providing facilities for the people. We have built the Intercolonial railway at a cost of $75,000,000, which does not practically pay its way, according to the records which have been given to this House by different hon. members. In the construction and deepening of the canals and waterways we have expended $80,000,000 in round numbers and we do not collect a dollar from them. They do not bring us any revenue, but it costs us $450,000 a year to keep them up. This is what has been spent in the interests of the country. We have spent $150,000,000 or $160,000,000 to aid and assist In the development of this eastern section of the country, and besides that there has been the large expenditure of the Dominion upon the Canadian Pacific Railway, to which I shall not advert at the present time. This being the case, it shows that the necessity is very great for the construction of a national transcontinental railway. This government took the first step and resolved to help Canada. That was its resolve. I believe it to be an honest resolve notwithstanding what others may say to the effect that it is an election dodge, or that it is iu the interest of certain senators, or that it is in the interest of a certain clique. I cannot bring myself to believe that fourteen or fifteen men in the cabinet council would consent to support a scheme such as that and practically take their lives in their hands in order to present it to this parliament. Hon. gentlemen may say that I am simple, that I am gullible, but I ask them to bring on the evidence before I shall believe it. I have confidence in the government of this country. Hon. gentlemen may say what they like regarding it, but until they bring the evidence to the contrary I for one shall not believe it. What manner of agreement have they made ? They have set forth the various reasons why they think we should build this railway. They have stated that they think the railway is necessary. They say to us : If you think with us, kindly consent to this agreement. Here is the agreement which is given to us attached to this Bill. Suppose we examine this agreement. Whom are they dealing with ? Are they dealing with promoters, are they dealing with men of straw ? Who is the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Com-


William Ross: pany ? Is Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson a man of straw ? I looked up his record the other day in the library. I found that in 1856, the year I was born, he was appointed as; a clerk in the treasury. He was private secretary to two secretaries of the treasury* he was private secretary to the Earl of Bea-consfield when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was afterwards appointed controller of Great Britain and he held thatj position for many years. During this time he was appointed on the International Coinage Commission in the interest of Great Britain. When the British government had important matters to be attended to in' Egypt they chose Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson. controller of the national debt, to go to Egypt. He went to .Egypt and took the position of finance minister, being associated with a French gentleman from Paris, who, in the interests of the French government, acted as minister of public works. Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson held that position for three years. He then returned to England and took his position again as controller of the national debt. He afterwards went back to Egypt, and if any hon. members have read the history of the recovery of Egypt from its financial distress under the guidance of the British government, they will know that this was in a great measure due to the Anri neial genius of Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson. This gentleman has also been on one of the Royal Commissions to make a treaty between England and France. You would not call a man like that an adventurer, you would call him a distinguished financier and a gentleman to whom it would be safe to entrust a scheme of this kind. Sir Rivers-Wilson, I need hardly say, is now the president of the Grand Trunk Railway. I am not acquainted with all the members of the board, but we all know the name of Chas. M. Hays as one of the greatest railway men in the world to-day. We have railway men iu Canada of whom we are proud. We have Sir Wm. Van Horne, and we have Sir Thomas Saughnessy who have done wonderful things for the Canadian Pacific Railway, but perhaps a greater accomplishment than any they achieved, was when Hr. Hays succeeded in bringing the Grand Trunk Railway to the high position it occupies to-day. We who live upon the line of the Grand Trunk Railway knew its condition when Mr. Hays took hold of it. He has completely reorganized its forces, and its credit which was then very low has to-day been established on such a firm basis that the securities of )the Grand Trunk Railway have been enhanced in value on the market to the tune of $75,000,000. That is the kind of man whom the government presents to us as an associate in the carrying out of this national project. Then connected with the Grand Trunk Railway we also have Mr. Wainright. Mr. Wainright occupies a position of responsibility in connection with this

railway company and he has in the past done excellent service. Mr. Wainwright is known to every one in this House, and I am safe in saying that we all have confidence in his opinion on any railway question. He is not heard of a great deal, but his judgment is good and his counsel will lie valuable. The government did not submit to us a lot of adventurers as their associates, but they gave us a contract signed by men of ability and responsibility. For my part, I think all the more of the contract that it bears such names. I desire to keep my remarks within reasonable limit, Mr. Speaker. If I entered into all the details which a study of the subject has placed at my disposal I might speak for hours as some other gentlemen have done, but I shall be brief. With another member of this House I went through the contract the first day it was issued, and we both came to the conclusion that no better contract under the circumstances, could be offered for the approval of the Canadian people. For myself, I do not see how the government could make a better contract without tying up the hands of the other party altogether. Let me run briefly over the provisions of this contract which parliament is asked to approve of. The government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will build a standard road from Moncton to the Pacific coast which shall be upon Canadian territory. Does that not appeal to the sentiment of every Canadian. The company shall deposit ,85.000.000 in cash or bonds as security for the faithful fulfilment of their contract. The western section shall be commenced forthwith and built in five years. The government will build the eastern section and lease it to the company. The company will maintain and operate the whole road. The government will guarantee the bonds of the company's western division, the prairie section to the amount of three-quarters of $13,000 per mile and the mountain section to the extent of three-quarters of ?30,000 per mile. The company shall have $45,000,000 capital, and shall equip the whole road, and under sections 14 and 15 the cost of construction and the working expenditure on the eastern division are defined so that there shall be no friction at all between the two parties to the contract. Should the company default in interest, the government alone pays it and that is important, because as it is to be an all-Canadian road, if the company defaults in paying its interest coupons, the government steps into their place. The Grand Trunk Railway of Canada shall guarantee the extra cost of the western section, and the company shall give the government a mortgage on all its interest in the property. The company shall buy all their materials and supplies in Canada where possible and shall see that all just claims against them are paid. The company shall operate the road to the satisfaction of the government and all rates and tolls shall
be subject to government control. That is a most important thing in connection with this great transcontinental road. Ever since I have been in this House I have heard the members from the west complain that in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway there is no government control over the rates which they charge. In the present instance tills government has taken precaution that the rates of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway shall be under their control. Then the company contracts to do their best to keep Canadian trade in Canadian channels, and encourage shipment through Canadian ports. The company shall provide terminal facilities on both the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, and provide vessels for the transport of the traffic. Then again the company shall allow a director on their board lo be appointed by the government. That is the practice in all great financial institutions. You find that where an industry has borrowed money from a bank the bank puts a representative on the directorate, and that is what the government is doing in this case. The company shall in all cases of dispute submit to arbitration. Now, Sir, I think that every public interest is guarded in this contract. I am not a lawyer, I am only an ordinary layman, but I know what a contract means. I believe that there are many laymen in this House who can read a contract sometimes just as well or perhaps a little better than a lawyer, not denying lawyers all the credit that is due them. The contract I maintain is a good one. Its provisions are all properly hedged and surrounded with safeguards in the public interest. It is a wise provision in this Bill that no member of either House shall have a contract on this railway. Now, amongst other things, it has been urged against this project that we do not know the country through which the railway is going to run. For myself I am satisfied that we have a general idea of the country, sufficient at all events for our purposes until we actually commence the work of construction. It is said that we have no information on record, but anyone who wishes to go to the. library may find any amount of information there. At any rate, hon. gentleman opposite say there is no necessity for haste ; in fact, it is all wrong, and there Is nothing good in it at all. That is about the size of their argument. I have not heard anybody say outright that this is not a good scheme. I have listened to nearly all the sixty speeches which have been delivered in this debate, I have heard the arguments pro and con, I have tried to take them in, and I have heard absolutely no serious objection to the scheme of the government. True, the hon. leader of the opposition has put up an alternative scheme ; but he does not father it. He does not present it to this House in the shape of a motion. I do not wish to impute motives to any man in this House. I have tried to find a motive, however, for

that proposition. It seems to me that if that alternative scheme were so good a scheme as it is heralded by hon. gentlemen opposite, the leader of the opposition should put it in the form of a motion. But we have no motion from the opposition at the present time. We have the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee). This motion is :
. That all the words after ' that ' he struck out and the following substituted :-
By reason of growth in population and the rapid development in the productiveness and trade of Canada, and especially the western part thereof, the time is opportune for the adoption of a definite policy of government construction and operation of railways, under a properly safeguarded civil service system, put entirely beyond the influence of partisan politics.
The hon. member for Winnipeg in this motion speaks of the growth and development of the country. Western men never forget that the west is growing. Talk to a western man, and he will give you fifty reasons in five minutes why you should go and live in the west. Some of our eastern people think that the western people are a little too free. We have a good country in the east. I do not give up old Ontario for any other province ; I was born there, and I love it. But we have many good provinces, and I like to hear western people talk well of their own country. Then, the hon. member for Winnipeg says in his motion that the time is opportune. I think it is opportune that this railway should he built as proposed by the government, and the motion does not express any serious objection to it. But I do not know how it is possible in this country to carry on a government railroad or anything else entirely beyond the influence of partisan politics. Sou cannot eliminate politics from the business of this country. Some party must do that business, and there will be another party opposed to their policy. The question of operating railroads by commission is not yet settled. Indeed, there are many people who are opposed to that policy, and I am one of them. I could not vote for that resolution, because I do not think the country is ready at the present time for the government ownership of railways. I may change my views on that question, because I have advanced views. My conviction for some time has been that the government had better get ready to own the telegraphs and telephones. These have become a pressing need in this country, as much so, especially the telephone, as the post office. But I cannot favour the government ownership of railways at the present time.
The scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition was discussed so fully by the hon. Postmaster General last night that it would be useless for me to spend much time in showing that it is not as good a scheme as that proposed by the government. I do not
Mr. ROSS (Ontario!.
think it is, mainly for this reason, that it will not open up or develop any new country. That is, I believe, the strong feature of tills new government railway, that It will open up a new section of country for settlement, which will be of very great advantage to the people of Canada. The hon. leader of the opposition is not afraid to spend money, and he said that the people of this country were not. I am glad he said that, because I sometimes think that hon. members of this House are afraid of spending money. I am not. I think the money of this country, as rapidly as it comes in, should be spent in the interest of the people of Canada.
It has been said that the scheme of the government is a gigantic and monstrous scheme which will plunge this country in debt and ultimately in ruin. I do not think so. Since I have been in this House I have followed with a great deal of confidence the hon. leader of this government, and only once have I been compelled to vote opposite to him-I will not say against him. I am not sorry that I have followed him, because I believe that on every occasion I was right. He comes down with this scheme and practically fathers it. He says :	I
commend this scheme to the House as a good one, for the reasons I have advanced ; and I have no reason to go hack on his judgment on this occasion, though I also use my own judgment.
There is another member of the government in whom I have always felt and placed a good deal of confidence, as he has never been mistaken in his statements regarding the financial affairs of the country. I refer to the hon. Minister of Finance. He has told us what the cost of this railway will he-that the surplus of this government for one year would pay the total cost of this railway to the people of this country. I am not denying the fact that the national debt will be increased ; but if you increase the national debt, you wUl have a national asset to set off against that increase ; and is it not reasonable to suppose that if the Canadian Pacific Railway has almost doubled in value in twenty years, this other transcontinental railway, including that part of it which belongs to the government, will also double in value in twenty or twenty-five years ? If it does, our asset will be worth, not one hundred 'cents on the dollar, but one hundred and fifty or two hundred cents on the dollar. Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that the money will be properly spent, and that the amount stated by the Finance Minister is the proper one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. member pretend to say that the amount stated by the Minister of Finance, $13,000,000, is to be actually the cost of this railway ?


William Ross: Yes, that is all the outlay. I am prepared to back my reputa-* tion on the Finance Minister. That has no

reference to the maturity of the bonds ; but when you take up the bonds you own the railroad.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But if you buy something, don't you pay some consideration for it ?


William Ross: Certainly, you pay some consideration for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not the consideration which you have to pay for it standing against you ?


William Ross: If I buy a farm and mortgage it for all it is worth, I do not own the farm until I pay off the mortgage; but when I pay off the mortgage, do I not own the farm 1


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman borrows $2,000 to buy a farm, does he not owe the $2,000.


William Ross: But when I pay the $2,000, do I not own the farm ?


William Humphrey Bennett: But if the farm is no good ?
Mr. ROSS (Ontario;. Well, I think that we know something about finances on this side as well as members of the opposition.
I am prepared to take the statements made by the right hon. leader of this House and many members on this side, who have spoken in connection with this matter. 1 think, Sir, that I have gone as rapidly as I could over the main features of the subject before the House, but of course I did not expect to convince hon. gentlemen opposite, who have already made up their minds against it. I have simply given the reasons and the facts as they have presented themselves to my mind, and what I have said to-night has been the subject of mature consideration and the outcome of my honest conscientious convictions, and under these circumstances I am prepared to support this resolution.
Nations, as well as individuals, should have the courage to grapple with great problems. In this connection, I am reminded of a quotation from Lord Macauley, which appeared on the outside of the transportation building at the World's Pair :	' Of all
inventions, the alphabet alone excepted, those that have bridged distance have done the most for mankind.' That truth is particularly applicable to transcontinental railways. Look around and see what the world has been doing in that connection. Look at Russia, which for twenty-five years has been building a railway 3,600 miles long, across a country exactly similar to this country, which hon. gentlemen opposite term a sub-arctic region. Russia has built this railway through the region of Siberia. It was an undertaking which practically staggered the empire at first, but it has been successfully accomplished, and Russia has now her sea-ports on the Indian ocean. She accomplished it many years before it
was absolutely necessary, but her policy is to-day justified. People are flocking into that country, rich in hard woods, farm lands, water powers and all these things, and they have practically reduced the distance from London to Shanghi, so that when they put on fast trains they expect to shorten the time of travel between these two cities by ten days, which is half the time taken by the fastest vessels. I am told that railway magnates on this continent are looking' particularly into that question and are fearing the competition they will have to meet in that direction. Look at South Australia, offering 75,000 acres per mile to build a road 1,200 miles long, so that they will be giving 90,000,000 acres for the construction of 1,200 miles of railway over a country which is not the equal of this country, which is noted perhaps more for its minerals than anything else, but more particularly for its drought. What are they doing on the continent of Africa ? The British government are building a railway practically from Egypt to Cape Town, all the way down through dense forests of jungle. They are doing this to help the country and the individuals that are going to it. Shall we be behind in the race ? I say no. I am a Canadian, I feel the national blood tingling in my veins, I feel that this country shall not remain a nation of five million people,
I look to see the day when this will be a nation of twenty-five million, yes, fifty million people. We have the country, we have the resources, we have our vast prairies, we have our mountains filled with minerals, our rivers, our water powers, [DOT] our lakes, which this great transcontinental railway which we are about to build will open up to commerce, and give this country that greatness and prominence which are its manifest destiny; and when this great enterprise is brought to a successful completion, I shall be glad that I was one of those who had some share in its inauguration and promotion.


Mr. D. HENDERSON (Halton).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Ontario opened his speech with the well known remark that the trade of Canada is growing. I wonder did it occur to him that the trade of China is growing perhaps in larger proportions than even the trade of Canada '! But what that had to do with the subject before us is something I am utterly at a loss to understand. The hon. gentleman told us that the revenues of the country were increasing. I can see the connection between the Bill before us and the growth of our revenue, because, from the very nature of the question with which we are dealing, very large revenues indeed will be required. But when under the fiscal policy of this government, we have a system of hign taxation and low protection, how can we expect that the revenues of the country will do otherwise than increase. The people of

Canada to-day, notwithstanding anything which the hon. gentleman has told us, are paying higher taxes than were paid during the last six or seven years of Conservative regime, comparing the term of seven years of Liberal rule with the previous five or six or seven years of Conservative rule. The hon. gentleman attempted to congratulate himself that the exodus was decreasing and that immigration was increasing. He was glad that a large number of agriculturists were coining into this country to engage in farming. I should rather think that he would have regretted that the artisans, the workingmen, those who are consumers and not producers, were leaving the country, because, had he taken five minutes to investigate, he would have found in the Trade and Navigation Returns a very large amount of settlers effects going out of this country to the United States, proving conclusively that the people were going along with them.
It is not my intention to follow the hon. gentleman through the somewhat interesting speech-interesting to himself no doubt from his own standpoint-which he made, and I congratulate him on having made a very nice speech but a harmless one I am sure. There was not much in it to encourage the government in the course it is taking. He did not put forward any very strong reasons why this railway should be constructed through what has been called an unknown country.
Mr. Speaker, when we came to this House on the 12th day of March last, we were delighted to learn from the government, through the speech from the Throne, that they had determined upon a policy of better transportation facilities for this country. His Excellency informed us, through the speech from the Throne, that a commission of experienced men would be appointed for the purpose of looking into this whole matter. Special reasons were given why that was necessary, and I propose to read to yon from the speech from the Throne what these special reasons were. For I shall endeavour to keep close to the subject that we are dealing with. I want to state these reasons in order that I may build an argument upon them. His Excellency said : The great influx of population into our North-western territories and the very large additional areas of fertile land which are being brought under cultivation combine to further press upon us the need for increased transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products to the markets of tile world, through Canadian channels. 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.
When this House was asked to concur in the resolution, it was urged upon us that the most important question was to afford railway facilities for the new settlers, and for the old setters, for that matter. We Mr. HENDERSON.
were told by the hon. gentleman who moved the address in reply to the speech from the Throne that this was the great question before the House. He said:
To what end the raising of 200 million bushels of wheat in the west unless the farmers there can get that wheat to market in reasonable time and at a reasonable expense to them.
Note the words, 'in reasonable time and at reasonable expense.' And, as I proceed, I wish you to apply these words and see whether the scheme propounded by the government will serve to take the products of the west to the markets ' in reasonable time ' or ' at reasonable expense.' If not, then this great scheme would fail to meet the purpose that His Excellency had in view when he presented us with the speech from the Throne. The mover of the address also told us :
And the very same remarks apply to the mixed farmers of older Canada. These men must get their varied products to the seaboard quickly and inexpensively, or forfeit the markets of Britain and Europe. Therefore it is with great pleasure indeed that we heard the announcement in the speech from the Throne, that the government of His Excellency will immediately appoint a transportation commission to deal with this very intricate question, for the purpose of its betterment.
For a considerable time, however, this important matter was lost sight,of, as we all remember. It was not until the 19th of May last that we heard any more about this commission which was to investigate the question of better transportation facilities. Then an announcement was made that the commission was appointed, to be composed of Sir William Van Horne, John Bertram and Harold Kennedy, to' report on questions affecting the transportation of Canadian products to the markets of the world through and by Canadian ports, &c. In this announcement it was also stated- and I read now from the Order in Council which has been placed on record in ' Hansard ' more than once, but some portions of which, I think, well deserve further attention :
That the development of North-western Canada has manifested the inability of existing Canadian transportation agencies to take care of Canadian products.
That our agricultural exports can only command the prices over seas to which their natural excellence entitles them when they cease to be confounded and confused with the inferior and often adulterated articles produced elsewhere ; and to preserve their separate identity they must go through Canadian channels.
Further, the Order in Council says :
That the questions to he considered are complicated and involved, including among the objects to he sought the transportation of western products from place of production to the markets of the world involving the consideration of their transportation : -
From place of production to Canadian seaports.

From place of production to the western ports of Lake Superior.
From the western ports of Lake Superior to Canadian seaports.
This Order in Council especially declares-
That ill making such investigation attention should not be confided 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.
X would ask if the new surveys have been made? If so, where are the maps and reports ? Or, is the government simply taking a leap in the dark, regardless of the interests of the people of Canada, either in the east or in the west? We have been told that there are ' mountains of information.' Where are these mountains of information? I have failed in my efforts to put my hands upon anything at all that would give me the particular information that I would require before being able to decide the question as to the feasibility of the project that is before us. True, we have been told that some two hundred years ago Champlain crossed this- country. I think La Salle, another celebrated explorer, was referred to by the Prime Minister, and Alexander Mackenzie also-not lie whose monument we see on the grounds to the west of this building, but a man who died a hundred years ago, long before railways were thought of, and whose explorations were made at a time when it could hardly be said the question of whether a railway from Moncton to Winnipeg would carry the products of the west cheaply to market had been taken up for consideration. These are parts of the ' mountains of information ' to which we are referred. Then, we are told by this Order in Council :
That in these circumstances it devolves upon the Dominion government to consider and adopt the best possible means of promoting such measures as may enable Canada to control the transportation of its own products, anc! 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.
Very true. Then, as if to complete the solemn farce-for this commission had never met (it was not completed until to-day), and I cannot call it anything but a farce-the minister recommends the appointment of a commission composed of Sir William Van I-Iorne, Mr. John Bertram and Mr. Harold Kennedy, of whom Sir William Van Horne is to be chairman and convener, for the purpose of making any such inquiries, obtaining such information and making such reports and recommendations as, in their opinion the exigencies of the case may require.
My object in reading these extracts from this Order in Council is to show where the government have been derelict in their duty towards this House and towards the people
of this country. Here we have an emphatic declaration by the government of their own absolute want of information. They were in search of information ; they knew nothing more about the country, according to their own declaration than did hon members of this House outside of the government. They were in absolute want of information concerning the country and its needs, the best means of affording relief, whether by a new railroad, an all-rail route or by improving existing routes by rail and lake and river or by other means. The mind of the government was a blank on this question and they were in search of information according to their own declaration. They were in fact utterly helpless. A government of business men confessed their absolute inability to cope with the whole situation. Very early in July the Ho.use was informed that Sir William Van Horne, an able and competent man, was not able to act upon the commission, and I may here say that we on this side of the House join with the government in expressing regret that so able a man was unable to give attention to such an important question. Notwithstanding the lack of information, no new appointment was made by the government and on the 19th of May as I said, we find the government with their minds still an absolute blank, without hope as it were- hope was abandoned-and they did not appear to he able to secure another man to act upon the commission. On the 30th of July, notwithstanding the declaration they had made that information was necessary, that they could not proceed without it and that they were in search of it, they launched at once this gigantic scheme. The scheme was launched by the Prime Minister who made a solemn declaration that there was no time for deliberation, and this was done in the face of the solemn protest of the minister of the Crown whose duty it was to take charge of every matter pertaining to railways. He was the member of the government above all others who was best able to judge as to what was right and proper. He entered his protest, he declared against the mad haste with which the First Minister was proceeding to waste public money. X shall read his own words :
I am not in favour of impetuously rushing into the construction of a transcontinental line from Quebec, through an unknown country to Winnipeg and the west, until we know something about it-until we have the fullest Information about it. The project is one of very great magnitude, and should be dealt with only after the maturest deliberation.
The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) sealed his protest by placing his resignation in the hands of his leader, surrendering office, surrendering emoluments, surrendering social position, surrendering as I believe promotion, because I have regarded the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals as one of the

ablest men, if not tbe ablest man, in that government, and a man wiho was destined, bad he remainel in the government to play an important part in the future of this country. But since his resignation, members sitting on your right, Sir, have one after the other had nothing but ridicule and condemnation to offer to the ex-minister who dared to act on his own conviction and to do what he considered right. Why, they say, should he have been consulted. Only a few days ago the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in a lofty voice, said : Why should the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals have been consulted any more than any other member of the government ? What right had he to be taken into the confidence of the Prime Minister ? The Prime Minister did not think it beneath his dignity to take into his confidence certain senators and railway projectors who are not responsible to the people of this country for their actions. And yet, Sir, hon. gentlemen tell us that the Trime Minister was justified in refusing to accept the advice of the minister, who was better able than he was himself or than any other of the colleagues who surrounded him, to decide this matter. I say this is an important matter, when we consider that we are dealing with a project which might launch this country into an expense of anywhere from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000. The hon. gentleman approved of the fact that this man was ignored, that he was kept in blissful ignorance and I say it was unfair to that hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) and we on this side of the House and hon. gentlemen on that side of the House need not be surprised at all that a man of the feelings of the ex-minister of Railways and Canals should under such circumstances consider it his duty to withdraw from the government of which he had so long been a member. The hon. ex-minister said ;
I think I might justly complain that so important a matter of policy, arising within the sphere of my own department, should have been adopted and continued in this way behind my back and without my knowledge.
And such, Mr. Speaker, is liberalism, the boasted policy of hon. gentlemen to your right.
Well no report from the commission had been obtained ; in fact tbe commission bad not met as I said before. The opinion of Sir William Van Horne had been obtained notwithstanding tbe fact that he had declined to accept a position on the commission. We find that on August 5th he made known to a ' News ' reporter in Toronto his views on this question and although these views have been cited here time and again, I think it is a proper thing for me, even at this late hour, to occupy a few extra minutes to again cite these views, because they have had weight, and will have weight, not only with the members of the opposition but with supporters of the government. Sir


David Henderson: William Van Horne when interviewed in Toronto, said :
The Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand 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 Caudian port for shipment abroad, for the simple reason that it will never pay any road to do so. Nor will the transportation problems in the west ever be solved by the construction of an all-Canadian route from coast to coast.
Now, this is the advice of the very gentleman whom the government sought _ to place at the head of their commission. Notwithstanding the fact that be did not find it convenient to accept that position, why should they refuse to accept the information, to accept the advice which he has tendered even though not a member of tbe commission ?
Sir William Van Horne stated that the Canadian Pacific Railway shipped every carload of wheat that it was possible to ship by their steamship line on the great lakes from Fort William to Owen Sound, and thence east by rail or else by way of Buffalo and the Erie canal. The long haul around the great lakes was dreaded, because it was unprofitable, and the bulk of the grain brought by that route was carried during the winter months, and used by the millers of Ontario to keep their mills in operation during the cold season. There was altogether too much talk of an all-Canadian route by people who were entirely ignorant of the situation.
And be added :
I state this emphatically that no all-Canadian line, I care not by whom it is built or run, will voluntarily draw a single carload of wheat east of Port Arthur over its tracks. We occasionally take one when the traffic by boat is congested, in the winter, when any special need arises.
Had the government accepted tbe advice of Sir William Van Horne, I fancy that today we would not be sitting here in tbe sixth month of a long session considering a project which Sir William Van Horne says can never profitably carry a bushel of wheat from tbe North-west Territories to a seaport. Of course, we will be told that Sir William Van Horne is an interested party, but bis standing in this country is such that notwithstanding his close alliance with tbe Canadian Pacific Railway, his advice would be accepted, bis counsel would be accepted, liis opinion would be accepted by the people of this country. Well, we are told this is not a time for deliberation. The right lion. Prime Minister was emphatic upon this point. Why not? We are spending $100,000,000 or $150,000,000. Why not deliberate? An bon. gentleman on my left says more than that. I am inclined to agree with him. Why not deliberate ? Are the government afraid of public opinion? Do they want to rush this mad scheme through tbe House and crystallize it into law before tbe people become seized of its enormity, when for ever it will be impossible to re-

voke it? Is this why the government are not anxious to deliberate ? I fail to find practically any other good reason for this extraordinary desire to rush the Bill through the House at the present time. In fact, the right lion, gentleman, in his address, grows frantic over his desire for Immediate action, and invokes the aid of heaven to avoid disaster and delay. Let me read his prayer :
It is not of to-morrow, but of this day, of this hour and of this minute. Heaven grant that it be not already too late ; heaven grant that, by reason of delay, the trade of Canada is not deviated to other channels, and that an ever vigilant competitor does not take to himself the trade that properly belongs to those who acknowledge Canada as their native or their adopted land.
Only last week I took up a reliable Montreal paper and I found this report. It showed me how quickly the answer to the right lion. Prime Minister's prayer had been given. The report is this :
Chicago, 111., August 21.-Lake shipments of corn for the port of Montreal have aggregated
1.000.	000 bushels during the past few days, 'file gain of the Montreal ports is due entirely to the action of the government in making the Canadian canals free.
Iii making the Canadian canals free. Why then should we stop at the canals ? Why not make the port of Montreal free, and increase the business of that port ? I visited the port of Montreal a short time ago in company with many lion, members of this House. I went on board the vessel and after going over this port and viewing its surroundings, if there was one single thing that I became convinced of more than another during my visit there it was the fact that the port of Montread should be a free port.
Grain can now be shipped from Chicago to Montreal for export to Liverpool three cents a bushel cheaper than it can be routed by part-rail, part-lake, through Boston. When it is known that a fraction of a cent a bushel will divert all the grain that can possibly go through a port, the advantage that Montreal has over American ports will be readily seen.
Then comes au important announcement as to trade.
During the first seven months of the present year over 9,000,000 bushels of wheat, and almost
4.000.	000 bushels of corn have passed through the port of Montreal, as against a trifle over
1.000.	000 bushels of wheat, and 4,000,000 bushels of corn through the port of Boston.
What are we to be alarmed about ? If we utilize our water-ways, if we utilize our ports and run them properly we can command the trade of the country, and we need nof be alarmed about the Americans taking it from us. Lake Superior is the key to the whole situation. What was Lake Superior put there for? Was there no object? Why was it not a rocky promintory or why was it not an agricultural country ? Lake Superior is there for a purpose. It is the
key to the whole situation between the great west and the east, and it will be the means of regulating transport for all time to come and of levelling the rates charged from the west to the east.
Has the government a mandate from the people to construct this road, and this is an important question ? We know now that those who criticised most severely at that time, now acknowledge the wisdom of the men who constructed the Canadian Pacific Railway. I only wish we could hope, that twenty-five years hence the same con-mendation will be given to the men who will construct this new transcontinental road, if ever it should be constructed. Is there any immediate demand for another transcontinental road ? Is there an immediate demand for it, and will the proposed road fulfil the requirements of increased transportation facilities ? These are grave questions. Let us hear from those who are interested and those who have knowledge on that point. We have not been able to hear from the transportation commission, but we have heard from others who have studied the question and who are able to speak from practical knowledge. The exMinister of Railways has spoken with no uncertain sound in condemnation of this scheme. He says it will not meet the requirements of the case and that therefore the country should not be plunged into a huge expenditure in order to secure this road. Sir William Van Horne has voiced his opinion that the a-oad will be no good for the purpose for which it is designed. It is not sufficient that that road shall carry pulpwood from Lake Abitibi to Shawinigan Falls and Grand-M6re, and carry pulpwood from Grand-M6re and Shawinigan Falls back again to Lake Abitibi. I submit that is about all that those gentlemen tell us is the local trade that will be found in that country. They are simply proposing to carry coal to Newcastle and then carry it back again. Premier Roblin, a man now of railway fame ; a man who has made railway transportation a successful study, because he has done more for the people of the North-west in railway legislation than all the governments that preceded him in Manitoba ; he is not backward in pronouncing his opinion, and he says :
The people of Manitoba and the west are strongly opposed to the Canadian government granting one dollar of public money or an acre of land to the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as an allCanadian route from coast to coast because they do not see any material advantage in its construction to the people of western Canada.
Later on he says :
Where is the demand for the construction of this road ? I fail to find it anywhere. Manitoba to-day needed no more railways, for the average distance from the farmer to the railway in Manitoba was but five miles. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian

Northern Railway would be quite able for the next twenty years to supply all the railway necessities, whereas what was wanted was an increased equipment especially in rolling stock.
These opinions are worth their weight in gold at this juncture. Men who have made this question a study, men who are able to give an opinion to those who only two months ago, or just before launching this * scheme on this country acknowledged that their minds were a blank upon the whole question; they condemn the scheme. We were told that the government could not wait a day, nor even an hour, nor even a minute. But it is the government alone that insists upon hasty action. The Prime Minister told us that Canada is commercially dependent on the United States, and that to secure our independence we must have a new transcontinental railway. I confess it was news to me to hear that we were not commercially independent of the United States. I admit that had the Liberals led by the First Minister to-day, had their way in 1891, we would not be commercially independent of the United States to-day. But thanks to the loyalty of the Canadian people, we maintained our commercial and political independence and we will maintain that independence to the end. I will read an extract from the speech of the Prime Minister, because I think it is proper that the minds of the members in this House should be refreshed from time to time on what leading members of the administration have said. The right hon. gentleman said this :
What are your minds running to when you have facts staring you in the face which show you that at this moment Canada is not commercially independent of the United States. What is our position to-day ? From the early days of railway development in this country we have been dependent on American good-will for the transportation of our goods across American territory. From the early days of Canadian railway development we have been allowed to make use of American territory and harbours ; the American government granted us the bonding privilege, they granted us the privilege of using their harbours for our imports and exports without paying them tolls and customs duties.
Again he said :
We cannot take steps to better our position, to improve our trade, but we are told from the American side that we had better look out because forsooth the bonding privilege will be taken from us.
Then he quotes Andrew Carnegie, and the President of the United States and the New York ' Sun,' to show that these threats were held out to us dating from the year 1888. Let me say to the Prime Minister of this country, that there is an old adage which says : barking dogs never bite, and that is as true to-day as it was a hundred years ago. The Prime Minister need not be afraid of the barking of the United States with reference to the bonding privilege, because Mr. HENDERSON.
they have no intention of biting. The Prime Minister knows well that we too can abrogate the bonding privilege. We have just as much power in that matter as the United States has, because for many years we have had an all-Canadian railway on Canadian soil. You can to-day get on board the Canadian Pacific Railway at Vancouver, transfer to the Intercolonial Railway at Montreal, and you are landed in Halifax without touching anything but purely Canadian soil. When this Grand Trunk Pacific transcontinental railway is constructed1 what better off will we be ? Why, you will be landed at Moncton, but still you would have to transfer to reach the seaboard. To-day we are just as independent of the United States as we can possibly be when this new railway is built. If we are interfered with at any time, then, to paraphrase the words of the Prime Minister, we can say :
Take off your bonding privilege whenever it suits you, we are commercially independent.
Here is another statement which was made by the Prime Minister :
We consider it the duty of those who sit within those walls by the will of the people to provide immediate means whereby the products of these new settlers may find an exodus to the ocean at the least possible cost.
To move the products of the west to the east seems to be the primary object of this new government railway, according to the Prime Minister.
The smallest cost and the immediate necessity-these are two points which I desire hon. members to keep in mind. An immediate and cheap grain route is what we are seeking to bring about. Will the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway from Winnipeg to Moncton be immediate ? Will it be cheap ? Will this all-rail route be as cheap as rail and water ? There is one thing certain-it cannot be immediate ; because five years is the shortest time which the government have given us any assurance of that it will take to construct that road. Consequently the right hon. First Minister is defeated in his first proposition ; it cannot give immediate relief to the congestion of the west. It will not be as cheap as rail and water, which I shall show you very conclusively before I sit down, and which has been demonstrated time and again by hon. members on this side of the House. This is the crux of the whole matter. If this road will not at once give us relief, and give it to us cheaper than it can be obtained at the present time, it will accomplish the purpose which we have in view. AVhy not, then, extend and improve the existing system if by so doing we can furnish a route that will accomplish the purpose that we have in view ? Let us proceed to extend out existing system of railways in the east, to improve our water-ways, and to extend ail our great existing railway systems into the west with as convenient speed as possible.

Tliat, associated with our water-ways, will to my mind accomplish the purpose. It will be the means of providing us with an immediate outlet for the crops of the west and a cheaper route than can he provided in any other way. In this way we shall he able to utilize the Intercolonial Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway. Let us utilize to the fullest extent all the railway systems which we have at the present time, by bringing them into connection with each other and into connection with the great water-ways of this country, and we will solve the problem of transportation, concerning which this commission was founded to give us the fullest information. We have now plenty of railway lines from the west to the east; I am convinced of that. What is wanted is more complete equipment. There .is no question in my mind, and I think in the mind of any hon. member of this House, that the two railways running at the present time between Winnipeg and Port Arthur, will carry all the products of that western country for the next ten, fifteen, or twenty-five years. But these railways require to be more fully equipped. They must be provided with more haulage power ; they must be provided with more cars ; elevator accommodation must be increased. If all this is done it will provide a means of taking all the grain of the western country from the hopper that was spoken of by Sir William Van Horne through the spout, which I understand to be the country lying between Winnipeg and Port Arthur. Enlarge the spout, and you accomplish your purpose, and in the easiest possible way.
The hon. leader of the opposition has outlined a scheme which to my mind will meet what is desired at the present time very much better than the proposition made by the government. I desire to refer to that scheme, because I think it has not been discussed by hon. members at your right in a fair spirit; and, in order that I may make no mistake, I propose to read the language of the hon. leader of the opposition, so that it may again go on record and be read to the people of this country. The hon. leader of the opposition, referring to his plan, and contrasting it with that of the government, says : 1 2 3
1.	It combines prompt action with deliberation and caution.
2.	It developes and does not throttle the Intercolonial.
3.	It takes account of the expenditure upon the Intercolonial and upon the inland waterways, and brings those great national highways in harmony with our project. The lake route, the St. Lawrence and other canals are joined by the policy I propose in one harmonious whole, whereas the policy of the government, which cuts off the water-ways, which cuts off the lake communication-cuts off the very Intercolonial Railway on which this country has spent $70,000.000-and on which this government have spent $15,000,000 for the purpos-' of doing the very thing which I am advocating in this House.
4.	It develops transportation along the lines of least resistance, that is to say. by water and by water and rail.
5.	While connecting at the same time all the great railway systems in Canada, it controls in the only effective way the carriage of Canadian products through Canadian channels, by enabling the people's railway to compete for this traffic.
0. It affords immediate relief to the congestion of the west by bringing the Grand Trunk Railway into Winnipeg without delay. And
7.	It insists that further railway development in tile west shall not only give necessary competition in settled districts, but shall open and develop new country.
I do not desire to enlarge upon that scheme. The language is clean-cut and speaks for itself. I leave it to the House to judge as to the plan which he has propounded. It refers to the immediate action that is called for at the present time. The cry comes from the west for better equipment. more haulage power, more ears, more elevators, more rapid transit from the place of production. I believe this scheme will furnish all these requirements. But another important factor must be combined with it, that is, the factor of cheapness. I care not what route you may construct or devise, unless it includes the element of cheapness, you will find it impossible to force grain or any other product over it. Now, can an all-rail route combine all these qualities that I have mentioned-cheapness and immediate .results. .
Let us look elsewhere to see how the traffic rates compare. From Chicago to New York by rail is 900 miles. By lake and rail it is 1,400 miles. Rail competition is keen from Chicago to New York, because there are fully half a dozen railways running between these two points, provided with extra good haulage power, running through a well settled country and able to pick up freight along the way-just the very kind of railway that would be able to produce the best results, so far as cheapness of rates is concerned. But let us compare the two. I take my figures from the Chicago Board of Trade reports. In 1890 the lake and rail rate from Chicago to New York per bushel was 8-52 and the all-rail rate was 14'30 on wheat, or an increase of 70 per cent. In 1895 the lake and rail rate was 6-96 against an all-rail rate of 11-89. or an Increase in the latter of 70 per cent. In 1901, the last year of which I am able to find any report, the lake and rail rate was 5-54 and the all-rail rate 9-88, showing an increase in the latter over the former of 78 per cent. The average increase of all-rail over lake and rail rates, during the periods I have mentioned, was from 70 to 78 per cent, although the rail and water route is much longer than the all-rail route. I propose to take some actual rates, because we can find actual charges to guide



Us. From Winnipeg to Fort William, on the 1st day of September next, the rate on the Canadian Northern will be 6 cents per bushel. From Fort William to Montreal, by way of Depot Harbour, we are informed-and the statement has not been contradicted-that wheat was carried for 3J cents, making the rail and lake rate from Winnipeg to Montreal Of cents per bushel for wheat. From Winnipeg to Fort William the rate is 6 cents per bushel ; and we are told that with proper elevators at Port Colborne and other ports grain could be carried from Fort William to Montreal by rail, lake and canal at 3 cents per bushel, or at a total cost of 9 cents per bushel. The average rate for the past five years, I am informed, by rail from Fort William to Montreal is 12 cents and from Winnipeg to Fort William it is proposed to make it 6 cents, so that the allrail rate route from Winnipeg to Montreal, per bushel of wheat, will be 18 cents. If we take the evidence of Mr. Wainwright, to whom the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross) referred to-night, given before a committee of this House in 1898, we will find that he then said that one-half of one per cent per ton per mile was a satisfactory rate on long distances, such as 500, or COO, or 1,000 miles. If you make the calculation, you will find that the rate on a bushel of wheat from Winnipeg to Montreal or Quebec on this new transcontinental railway will be 21 cents. We are told that there is a company which will carry wheat at present, or has been carrying it, from Duluth to Montreal for 31 cents. 'Taking the rate from Winnipeg to Fort William as 6 cents, and taking the comparative distance, the rate from Winnipeg to Montreal or Quebec by the transcontinental line would be 20 cents. To my mind that Is conclusive Evidence of the absolute impossibility of discovering an all-rail route which will convey the products of the west to the ports in the east anything like as cheaply as they can be carried by lake and rail route or rail, lake, river and canal route, or any route that combines water and rail. In the face of these facts, can we conclude that the congestion in the west can be relieved by the proposition submitted to us by the government. The hou. the Minister of the Interior, in order to demonstrate the possibility of carrying grain from Winnipeg to Montreal for about 11J cents, gave a case where grain had been carried from Kansas city to Chicago, a distance of about 500 miles, for 5 cents per 100 pounds. I draw attention to this fact, because I think it is unfair for the hon. minister to build up an argument on what the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) so well designated as a bargain-day rate, a rate that might never be repeated, and which to-day is not in force, but instead of which there is a rate in force of about 14 cents per 100 pounds. I say it was not fair on the part of the hon. minister to base an argu-Mr. HENDERSON.
ment on such a frivolous and unsatisfactory foundation in order to convince the people that we are doing right in voting $100,000,000 or $130,000,000 for this scheme.
With reference to the character of the country through which this road is to pass, I propose to say a word. I have nothing of my own to say that will discredit the country. Should I say anything that does not present the country through which this road is to pass in such a favourable light as we would like, I shall not use my own, but the language of others. I hope that we have a fine country to the north of us. It is a large country but is not yet required for the purpose of colonization, and I say now-and I say in all good feeling towards the government and in perfect good faith-that the government are making a fatal mistake. I say it is a shame to induce young men to go from Ontario and Quebec to settle in northern Ontario or northern Quebec, so long as we have the prairies in the west waiting simply for the plough to be put in and the crop to be reaped the following year.
Why, Mr. Speaker, it would simply be consigning a man to prison as compared with going to the North-west. If a man undertakes to hew out a home in northern Ontario or Quebec, be the country ever so good, he would not find himself so well oft' in twenty years as the man who goes to the prairies of the west .will find himself in from three to five years. And I say that the government will make a sad mistake if they induce the young men of this country to settle in the northern regions of these older provinces. Retain that country for the future, it will be time enough to colonize it when it is wanted. Why should our sons go into the forests while the immigrants from the old land come in and reap of our very best ? If a man wants to move from Ontario or Quebec and build up a new home, let him go to Manitoba or the North-west Territories. But do not advise him to go, do not spend a dollar for the purpose of inducing a man to go into New Ontario or New Quebec at the present time. We have heard glowing accounts of that country and I would be only too glad if they were all absolutely true. I am referring now to the country through which this road is to pass from Moncton to Winnipeg. We are told of the vast stretches of agricultural land in these two provinces, rich in spruce and poplar and with fine, arable soil. The report of the exploration and survey of northern Ontario in 1900 has been profusely read from. I am going to read something from it too. What I do regret is that hon. gentlemen opposite, yes, and even Ministers of the Crown read part and left out part. 1 propose to supplement their selections with something which they did not feel at liberty to read to this House. I think we ought to be perfectly honest and fair in this matter. I do not say they were dishonest

995S
I would not attribute that to them. Perhaps their attention was not drawn to it by the president or manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, or perhaps this scheme might not have gone through. 1 will take this little extract and the hon. gentleman will find it in exactly the same volume from which they were reading. This is where it makes reference to a tract of G,000 square miles, * sixty per cent of which would cut five cords of spruce wood to the acre.' 1 need not ask you, Mr. Speaker, what kind of land it is that would produce five cords of spruce to the acre. Would you like to live on it V Or induce your son to go and settle on it ? There Is only one conclusion we can arrive at as to the character of land that grows five cords of spruce wood to the acre. I do not think that this fact indicates a high degree of fertility. We were told the other day that the government has mountains of information with regard to this country, and the Prime Minister said that from 1872 to 1880, twenty-eight exploration parties had been sent into that country. This was about the time the Canadian Pacific Railway was to be built and he told us that $5,000,000 had been spent at that time in exploring this country. Surely all that ought to make some mountains of information, even if only small ones. I am going to give you the opinion of a gentleman who had access to these reports, a gentleman who had the honour of a seat in this House and took part in the discussion when a charter was granted for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the gentleman who now occupies the high and honourable position of Prime Minister of Ontario. And I am going to ask you what you think of his opinion of that country after he had investigated these mountains of information. He spoke in this House on the 10th of January, 1881, and he not only spoke with reference to Ontario, but also with reference to Quebec, New Brunswick, and, I believe, Prince Edward Island, and if 1 am not mistaken, Nova Scotia as well-a large portion of the country through which this road is to pass. The ' clay belt ' of 15,000,000 acres of land existed there as it exists now. It should be worth more now than it was then, but perhaps the difference would not be very much. Let us see what Hon. G. W. Ross thought of this country after he had perused this $5,000,000 worth of information about it. He said :
Sir, 1 look upon ths North-west as the right arm of this Dominion. The other portions of this country are tolerably well occupied now. We have a very small portion of land in Ontario for sale. There is a small area of good land in Quebec for sale, and with regard to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island there is very little cultivable land for sale. Now, the increase of our population requires that so far as agricultural pursuits are concerned, room should he found for [DOT]our surplus population. Where are these 3124
homes to be found ? Not in Ontario, because in order to provide homes for young farmers, somebody else must be bought out.
This is his opinion as to whether it would be better to send our young men to the northern regions of our older provinces or send them to our North-west. He said further :
I say this contract involves the immediate construction of that length of road, which is not required in the interest of colonization or settlement. We certainly are not building the Lake Superior end of the road, what is called the eastern section, for the purpose of colonization. We have no evidence that the land is of great value ; we know the climate is unfavourable, we know the soil is somewhat barren. True, there may be some valuable timber in that country, but we do not require to build a railway into it for the sake of timber.
He was lumberman enough to know that we bring timber by way of the river, That is the country of which we have heard so much. I have not said a word to discredit it; I am simply telling hon. gentlemen opposite what their friends say about it. And I hope that, even at this late date, the question may be reconsidered whether the country is worth the immense expenditure of $100,000,000 to $150,000,000 to colonize it. I think we are driven to the conclusion that the Grand Trunk Pacific will not be a grain route. Then if it is not to be a colonization railway, what, under heaven, are we spending the money for '!
But there is one Other phase of this question that I would like to refer to, and I shall do so as briefly as I can. It is not at all the most unimportant part of the whole matter-the cost of the road _to the country. The Prime Minister told us it would cost exactly $13,000,000 and no more. The Minister of Finance was a little more extravagant, and he raised that sum to $13,725,703-just see how exact he was to the dollar. That was to be the entire cost that this country would have to meet for the road from the Pacific Ocean to Moncton. The Winnipeg to Monoton section I understood from the hon. gentleman is to cost this country only $8,853,502. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), no doubt desirous of pleasing the First Minister, exactly coincided with him, there was not a whit of difference between the two gentlemen. That is not always the case, but they generally come together.


An hon. MEMBER.: Pre-arranged.


David Henderson: Prearranged. I dare say. And then, Sir, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the man who was expected to he the custodian of Ontario's interests, who was to watch the public chest when he came down here and to see that no harm was done to it, did not seem so confident as the First Miinister, but he was perfectly satisfied that $14,000,000, and not one dollar more, would be all the country would be


Mr. SCOTT.: Is that not 120 miles ?


David Henderson: I believe that the distance is given by actual survey.


James Clancy: And the plans are made.


David Henderson: This is no unexplored part of the country. This has been explored and is well known. I am informed by the hon. gentleman who made that statement here yesterday that 104 miles is the correct distance from Scotia Junction to Sudbury.


Thomas Walter Scott: I think 120 miles was the distance named by the hon. leader of the opposition.


David Henderson: It is not what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) thinks. I will take the positive statement of the hon. member for. Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) a hundred times before I will take what any hon. member thinks.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am quoting the words of the hon. leader of the opposition.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman said [DOT] I think.' My hon. friend from Bothwell assures me that he knows what the figures are. However, it is not a matter to quarrel over. It is a matter of detail but I feel assured in giving these figures to the House that I am giving the correct figures. Then from Sudbury to Fort William, 555 miles, the hon. leader of the opposition said that that portion of the road could be acquired for the sum of $25,000,000. He proposes that $3,000,000 shall be expended upon the betterment of the road so as to bring it up to a proper grade and to make it a grain carrying road of the best quality. He then proposes to acquire by purchase if necessary-it is possible that it may not be necessary-the Canadian Pacific Railway from Fort William to Winnipeg, 426 miles in length, at $30,000 per mile, or $12,780,000 in all and for betterments to make it a more complete railway for the purpose of carrying large trains he proposes to expend $2,-
100,000,	making a total of $60,440,000 as the entire cost of providing this railway system over which all the existing railway systems of this country at the present time can move and over which they can all carry traffic and which, by permitting the use of this road by all the railway systems, would
enable the government, if they adopt this plan, to find a means of relieving the country of the congestion that is complained of at the present time and providing a means for years and years to come and not only that but of providing an immediate means of bringing out of that country the ,vast crops that are produced there. The benefit of this will be in the fact that the effect will be immediate, not five years hence, not ten years hence, but within six months from now, and practically I see no reason why it should not be accomplished this year if necessary to relieve the congestion in the west.
Now, the government plan gives us an allrail route from Winnipeg to Moncton for $112,352,000. The plan of the hon. leader of the opposition provides, first, an allrail route, but it provides also from Winnipeg to Montreal the means of making the most complete rail-route and water-route to ocean ports. The government plan takes wheat from Winnipeg to ocean ports for 20 cents per bushel. The alternative plan proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition will accomplish the same thing, for from 9 to 9} cents per bushel. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), whom I am pleased, to see in his place at the present time, told us the other day that in the course of a few years, not many years, five years, or ten years at the outside, this road would not be required so much for the purpose of carrying wheat as it would be for the purpose of carrying cattle and other products of that country. Well, I am glad to assure the hon. Minister of Agriculture that he will be provided with, a better route for carrying cattle from that western country to ocean ports if he adopts the plan suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition than he would be if he sent them through this back country over a longer route possibly at a time of the year in the winter season when the road would be blockaded and transportation would be stopped. The hon. minister shakes his head. I do not know why he should do so. He must be a little more dull of comprehension than I take him to be. I think this a very simple problem. Will he tell us any reason in the world, why, if he can ship a carload of cattle from Winnipeg over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway running hundreds and hundreds of miles north of civilization through the province of Ontario and Quebec and away down to an ocean port, the same train of cattle cannot be shipped the other way from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, from Port Arthur to Sudbury, from Sudbury to Scotia Junction, and from there over the Canada Atlantic to Coteau Junction and to Montreal ? I can assure him without going into any' very complex calculation that his carload of cattle will he on board the ship in Montreal long before it would reach its destination over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.	.


Thomas Walter Scott: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question ?


David Henderson: Well, the bon. gentleman may do so, although, whilst I am occupying the floor, I do not know that any hon. gentleman has a right to, but I shall grant him the privilege. I desire to close my remarks, but before doing so I desire to say that my honest conviction is that if the government pursue their scheme and construct this railway they will find out to their sorrow that after the whole road has been completed from Winnipeg to Moncton and the resources of this country have been exhausted for the purpose of constructing the road, the demand from the people of the western country will be as strong as ever for the removal of the congested state of the traffic there. I do not believe the road is going to accomplish that purpose. It certainly will not do so immediately. I believe it will not do so effectively. There is another advantage in the plan that the leader of the opposition has suggested. It will at ouce put the railway system of the western country in direct communication with all our large commercial centres. It will connect it with Halifax, St. John, Moncton, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, London, Peterborough and all other manufacturing centres throughout the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. How could you connect the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway with all these commercial centres ? I hope and trust that the government may yet see their way to withdraw this proposal, and to adopt the wiser and speedier and better plan that has been suggested by the leader of the opposition, under which the wheat fields of the west will be brought in direct connection with the Atlantic seaboard within six months or a year at most.
, Mr. GEORGE STEPHENS (Kent. Ont.). Mr. Speaker, the hour is so late that I shall not occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes. The member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) said, that the scheme proposed by the government was a mad scheme, and, of course, he claimed great merit for the scheme propounded by the leader of the opposition. However, he will have considerable difficulty in making the House and the country believe that the proposition of the leader of the opposition is a better one than that submitted to us by the Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman has quoted Sir William Van Horne as an authority, but we must remember that Sir William Van Horne has some prejudices, because be is interested in the Canadian Pacific Railway, and to say, as he does, that a bushel of wheat will never be carried over this road, is simply nonsense. Against the statement of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that there are sufficient railways at the present time in the Northwest, we have the statement of the member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) that last Mr. HENDERSON.
year the farmers of the North-west lost $6,000,000 for lack of better transportation facilities, and as it is needless to say that the hon. member (Mr. McCreary) who lives in the North-west knows more about that country than does the hon. member for Halton, the House will I am sure be disposed to accept the word of the former hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Halton also told us that the road proposed by the government will cost the country from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000, but the member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) told us that this road would cost $560,000,000, and I leave these two gentlemen to reconcile their differences between themselves. I regret that the member for Halton has such a poor opinion of this Canada of ours. I am optimistic of the future of this country, and I believe that there are vast areas yet untilled In the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick, which when this railway is completed will be brought under cultivation by a bappy and prosperous population. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) contends that this will not be a colonization road, but all the evidence goes to show that not only will it be a colonization road, but that it will be as well a great transcontinental highway through Canadian territory. Starting at Moncton the line passes through valuable agricultural lands which are well timbered, and which the young men of that province will remain at home to cultivate rather than go to the United States, as they are doing to-day. This railway opens up a tract of country nearly 300 miles long in New Brunswick, and if that country is settled for ten miles on each side of the line over 3.000,000 acres will be brought into cultivation. Here is a statement which recently appeared in the newspapers :


St.   J@: , August 21.-The rush of harvest excursionists from the maritime provinces to the North-we3t is unprecedented. The Canadian Pacific Railway announce to-night that they, have ticketed 2,400. Then there are 1,600 more along the line of the Intercolonial Railway in the maritime provinces, who will pass through here to-night or to-morrow. The Canadian Pacific Railway has been unable to get enough cars and this is causing delay.
This would tend to show that the young men of New Brunswick need employment, and are moving to the west or to the United States to find it. Would it not be better that they should remain at home to settle along this new line, .take out the timber, and develop the resources of their own province ? The hon. gentleman from Halton stated that this would not be a transcontinental road, but as it shortens the distance from Quebec to Moncton 125 miles, there is no doubt that it will secure the through-traffic and take the products of the west to tlie seaports of the maritime provinces. I believe that if this road never carried a bushel of wheat, it will be worth every dollar of its cost as a colonization railway. As to the contention of hon. gentlemen op-

posite, that this railway will parallel the Intercolonial Railway, I tannot see how that can be, when it is from 30 to 70 miles distant from the Intercolonial Railway throughout its entire length. X might mention that in the county of Kent, which 1 have the honour to represent, we have four lines of railways paralleling each other, and from Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie the distance is not more than twenty miles. Nevertheless all these roads seem to be doing well and paying dividends. This new road traverses the province of Quebec for about 450 miles and in that province it will create a new Quebec, opening up to settlement about 6,000,000 acres of land, which is well timbered, and as the report shows, fit for agriculture. For 1,000 miles the road will pass through the clay belt of Ontario, and if it is settled along its course for fifteen miles on each side, then we will have 15,000,000 acres of land brought within the reach of those who wish to occupy it. I am informed that this land in Ontario is good agricultural land, that it is heavily timbered, and in some places rich in minerals. Here is a report of Mr. Robert Bell, Civil Engineer, which will give some idea of the possibilities of the country :
Farming and gardening have been successfully carried on by the officers of the Hudson Bay Co., at their posts on Lakes Mattagami and Mis-sinibi. At the latter, Mr. John McIntyre, now of Fort William, has informed me : That he found spring wheat to ripen well. At Moose Factory, although the soil is a cold wet clay with a level undrained surface, farm and garden produce, in considerable variety, are raised every year. Among other crops harvested in 1874, were 1,700 bushels of good potatoes. Oats, barley, beans, peas, turnips, beets, carrots, cabbages, onions, tomatoes, &c., are grown without any more care than is required in other parts of Canada, and I was informed that some wheat which had got accidentally sown one year was found to ripen, but no experiments so far as I could learn, have ever been made to ascertain whether this cereal might be regularly cultivated or not. Upwards of 80 head of cattle are kept at Moose Factory, besides horses, sheep and pigs.
The climate in going northward from the height of land towards James' bay does not appear to get worse, vbut rather better. This may be due to the constant diminution in the elevation more than counterbalancing for the increasing latitude since in the these northern regions, a change in altitude affects the climate much more than the same amount of change would affect it in places farther south. The water of James bay may also exert a favourable influence, the bulk of it being made up, in the summer time of warm river water, which accumulates in the head of the bay and pushes the cold sea water farther north. The greater proportion of day to night during the summer months may be another cause of the comparative warmth of this region. I have referred to some of these points in previous reports, careful notes were kept in regard to the timber of the districts passed through, but the details would be unsuited to the present report, I may however, mention that the species of the roost importance, namely, the red and white pine, were common all the way from Lake Huron to Mattagami lake.
This goes to show that there are large tracts of land in that country fit for cultivation, and large areas of timber.
This road from Winnipeg to Quebec, lam told, will be about as short as the Canadian Pacific Railway from Winnipeg to Montreal. If that be the case, that is another argument in its favour as a transcontinental railway. I believe there are large tracts of timber in Northern Ontario. In the year 1902 we exported $4,383,182 worth of pulp and pulpwood. This was shipped mostly to Great Britain. Then we only supplied eight and a half per cent of the amount used. In 1902 we also exported $35,000,000 worth of wood and manufactures of wood. This is a large item, and it brings a great deal of money into our country. If the proposed railway is built through New Ontario, it will keep our population in Ontario. There will be farming, lumbering, pulp mills, elevators, saw mills, flour mills, oat mills, and ranching in operation along the line of that railway. There will be railways built from old Ontario intersecting this road, and they will be busy taking up machinery for the mills and the elevators and other supplies. The farmers of Ontario and Quebec will supply the requirements of the people who build the road. They will take up horses, beef, butter, eggs, tools of ail kinds, steel manufactures to supply structural work, cars, locomotives, rails, telegraph and telephone supplies; and they will bring back lumber and other natural products. Wages all over this country will be enhanced, and men will be kept busy.
Then, we pass oil from Winnipeg to Fort Simpson, through a long stretch of prairie, where the railway will open up millions of acres of wheat lands and grazing lands. Then we pass through a fine mineral district of British Columbia, where thousands of miners will go. and where thousands of miners would have been to-day if they could have got in the machinery and the supplies required in their business. This road will be busy in taking in their supplies and bringing out minerals, lumber, and so forth, in the year 1902 this country exported $33,048,708 worth of coal and other minerals. Mr. Selwyn, in a report made in the year 1875 says, that the climate of the Peace River district, compares favourably with that of the Saskatchewan or Montreal. He says, to give some idea of the value of a tract of generally fertile country such as that now described, let us assume, as above, that the area of actually cultivatable land is 23.500 square miles or 15.140.000 acres. Let us suppose for simplicity of calculation that the whole area were sown in wheat, the yield at the rate of twenty bushels to the acre would be 300,800,000 bushels This road will provide a home market for the farmer. The farmers of old Ontario, tiie province of Manitoba and the province of Quebec, will ship their produce over it. It will lake lumber into the prairies and farmers' products to the mines. Then, the

996S
shipping facilities which the company have contracted to supply at Port Simpson will make it a short route to the markets of Japan, China and Australia. The company will have to pay out a great deal of money for running expenses.
Canada has 18,S68 miles of railway, on which the running expenses last year amounted to $57,000,000. Taking that as a criterion, this company will pay out annually about $10,000,000 for the running expenses of the road. The road will advertise Canada as much as a great many thousand of dollars would do. It will cause immigration to come into the country. Branches will have to be built. Revenues will flow into the treasury. We get all these advantages, and what do they cost us ? I take the figures of the hon. Finance Minister, and I believe there is no one on whom we can more safely rely. He lias never yet. to my knowledge, deceived us in any way. He says that if $13,725,706 were set aside at the present time, it would pay the interest on the government's investment in tiiis railway for the seven years. He does not pretend to say that $13,000,000 is going to build the road ; but what he does say is that it will pay the interest which the government will have to pay. At the end of the fifty years, he concludes that the road will be worth fully as much, if not more, than it will be when completed. If there is any truth in the statement of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr, Osier), it surely will be worth more. He says : It will take fifteen years to bring up the best road you can build to the Grand Trunk standard of to-day. He also says that the Intercolonial Railway cost to build $21,500,000. and that after twenty-six years it is worth $71,000.000 or $72,000,000, or nearly three and a half times the original cost. If the Grand Trunk Pacific Company are going to spend any such amount of money on this road, it wiil certainly be worth more at the end of fifty years than it will be at the date of its completion; and when the fifty years will have expired, the road will revert back to the government, and they can then either sell or re-lease it. If they sold the road, and they got as much as it cost originally, then the figure of the hon. Minister of Finance would be right.
Now, as to the proposition which the hon. leader of the opposition brings down to the House. I would like every voter in the riding I represent* to examine carefully into the bargain which the leader of the" opposition proposed and that which the government have made, and also to compare carefully the bargain made with the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1881 with that which the government have concluded with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Such a comparison would not fail to convince any one who is open to conviction that the proposition submitted to the House is, in every respect, deserving of support. By it the government


Mr. STEPHENS.: do not tie up 25,QpO,000 acres of the best land, as the late government did in its contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway, nor does it put our farmers to the expense of keeping up the roads in the school section and the alternate sections, which has been so great a drawback to the North-west, and which is one of the pernicious clauses in the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway.
I shall not take up the time of the House by going into the legal aspects of this contract. Having every faith in the men who made this bargain and who drew up this agreement, I am confident that the interests of Canada are safeguarded on every hand. In my opinion, this road cannot be built too quickly ; and when built, the development of this country will be such that in four or five years after its construction the railway facilities then provided will be scarcely sufficient to carry expeditiously the grain of the west to our seaports. While supporting tiiis great transcontinental project, I am also in favour of our water-ways being improved. for I believe that there will be ample traffic for all our water-ways as well as all the railways we can build into that country. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to vote for this resolution. In the course I have taken, I am confident that many members of the opposition sympathize in their hearts, and would vote as I intend to do did not party exigencies compel them to do otherwise. Many of them, I am convinced, believe in their hearts that this scheme proposed by the government is very much better in the interest of the country than the one suggested by the leader of the opposition, and would vote for it if they could. At this late hour, Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up further time of the House, and I must apologize to hon. members for having delayed them so long and thank them for the kind attention they have given my remarks.
On motion of Mr. Ingram the debate was adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. Friday.

Friday, August 28, 1903.